CONNECTICUT PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS … · 2020. 4. 28. · CT Special Education Needs Assessment nieer.org NIEER Technical Report 2 Grateful acknowledgment is made to Andrea

CONNECTICUT PRESCHOOL SPECIAL

EDUCATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

April 28, 2020

Allison Friedman-

Krauss, Ph.D., Karin

Garver, Milagros

Nores, Ph.D., Zijia

Li, Ph.D., & Charles

Whitman, The

National Institute

for Early Education

Research

CT Special Education Needs Assessment nieer.org

NIEER Technical Report

1

About the Authors

Allison Friedman-Krauss, Ph.D. Dr. Friedman-Krauss is an Assistant Research Professor at

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. She is a

developmental psychologist and leads work on NIEER’s annual State of Preschool reports and

conducts other policy research including on Head Start. Her research interests include impacts of

early childhood education programs, early education quality, preschool teacher stress, and child

development in context.

Karin Garver. Ms. Garver is an Early Childhood Education Policy Specialist at the National

Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. She focuses on national

policy trends related to state-funded preschool programs, with particular interest in data systems,

inclusive preschool settings, and preschool finance.

Milagros Nores, Ph.D. Dr. Nores is an Associate Director of Research at The National Institute

for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Dr. Nores conducts research at

NIEER on issues related to early childhood policy, programs, and evaluation, both nationally and

internationally.

Zijia Li, Ph.D. Dr. Zijia Li is an Assistant Research Professor at the National Institute of Early

Education Research (NIEER). She is a psychometrician and statistician. She had led and

participated in multiple reliability and validity studies for child and classroom observational

tools. Her research interests are statistical, psychometric, and measurement theories and their

applications in early education through large-scale data; especially Rasch and item response

models for dichotomous or polytomous item responses, and how they are extended to multilevel

and longitudinal frameworks.

Charles Whitman, is an Assistant Project Coordinator at The National Institute for Early

Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. He provides in-office project support to

research staff, in addition to assisting in training and coordination of field work for various

research studies at NIEER.



2

Grateful acknowledgment is made to Andrea Brinnel at the Connecticut State Department of

Education (SDE), as well as all the staff in districts across CT that supported this work. We also

thank Michelle Levy at the Connecticut Office of Early Childhood, everyone who participated in

stakeholder meetings as well everyone who responded to our surveys.

Correspondence regarding this report should be addressed to Allison Friedman-Krauss at the

National Institute for Early Education Research. Email: [email protected].

Permission is granted to reprint this material if you acknowledge NIEER and the authors of the

item. For more information, call the Communications contact at (848) 932-4350, or visit NIEER

at nieer.org.

Suggested citation: Friedman-Krauss, A., Garver, K., Nores, M., Li, Z & Whitman, C. (2020).

Connecticut Preschool Special Education Needs Assessment. New Brunswick, NJ: National

Institute for Early Education Research.



3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Background Context ....................................................................................................................... 5

Study Methods ................................................................................................................................ 6

Survey Development ................................................................................................................... 6

Sample & Procedures .................................................................................................................. 7

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 9

1. What are the characteristics of the Preschool Programs in Connecticut that serve preschool-

age children with disabilities? ..................................................................................................... 9

Leadership ............................................................................................................................... 9

School Districts ..................................................................................................................... 11

School and Child Care Centers Providing Preschool ........................................................... 13

Preschool Classrooms ........................................................................................................... 16

Preschool Teaching Staff ...................................................................................................... 17

Preschool Children ................................................................................................................ 28

2. To what extent do preschool classrooms in CT serving children with IEPs provide them

with an education in their least restrictive environment? ......................................................... 38

Proportion of preschoolers in a classroom with an IEP ........................................................ 38

Inclusion policies .................................................................................................................. 39

Ensuring children with IEPs are served in their LRE ........................................................... 39

Policies to support children with IEPs .................................................................................. 42

Do schools maintain natural proportions of preschoolers with IEPs in classrooms? ........... 44

Related services .................................................................................................................... 45

3. How are IEPs developed? ..................................................................................................... 47

Policies and procedures for referrals ..................................................................................... 47

Policies for inclusion............................................................................................................. 47

Family involvement in the development of IEPs .................................................................. 47

Description of the referral process and IEP development .................................................... 49

Role of preschool teachers in IEP development and their access to IEP information .......... 51

Who is included on the PPTs? .............................................................................................. 53

How often are IEPs reviewed? .............................................................................................. 54

Transition of IEPs from Preschool to Kindergarten ............................................................. 54

4. Early Learning and Development Standards ........................................................................ 55

How familiar are staff with the ELDS? ................................................................................ 55



4

How is the CT ELDS Used by Programs? ............................................................................ 55

Training on CT ELDS ........................................................................................................... 58

Alignment of assessments with CT ELDS............................................................................ 58

Use of CT DOTS .................................................................................................................. 58

5. What types of Professional Development supports do teachers receive? ............................. 59

Amount of professional development provided to preschool teachers ................................. 59

Preschool professional development providers .................................................................... 59

Professional development topics covered for preschool teachers ......................................... 60

Coaching/Mentoring for preschool teachers ......................................................................... 60

Supports to attend professional development ....................................................................... 61

6. What supports are available for curriculum implementation? .............................................. 61

Preschool curriculum approaches and models ...................................................................... 61

Curriculum adaptations for preschoolers with IEPs ............................................................. 62

Curriculum training for preschool teachers .......................................................................... 62

7. Assessment and Screening .................................................................................................... 63

Preschool curriculum and related assessments ..................................................................... 63

Preschool assessments by purpose ........................................................................................ 63

Adaptations for assessments of preschoolers with IEPs ....................................................... 64

Frequency of screenings ....................................................................................................... 65

8. Preschool Classroom Experiences, Activities, and Accessibility ......................................... 65

Preschool classroom experiences .......................................................................................... 65

Classroom activities for preschoolers with IEPs .................................................................. 66

Time preschoolers spend in content areas ............................................................................ 66

Classroom accessibility ......................................................................................................... 68

9. Family Engagement .............................................................................................................. 68

Strategies used to promote family engagement .................................................................... 68

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 69

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix. Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................... 73

List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................. 80



5

Introduction

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) conducted a needs assessment to

understand and describe early childhood services for preschool-age children with an

Individualized Education Program (IEP) in the state of Connecticut. In collaboration with the

Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), NIEER developed survey protocols to

collect information about the quality of the environments in which 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old

preschoolers in Connecticut receive services as part of their IEP. This report provides a statewide

representative picture of the state of preschool programs in which children with IEPs are served

in CT. The needs assessment is designed to provide CSDE with information to support

professional learning opportunities and other CSDE priorities in relation to preschool-age

children with disabilities, as well as to provide guidance to ensure that all preschool-age children

with an IEP in the state receive high-quality services in their least restrictive environment (LRE).

This report summarizes the findings of the needs assessment. In particular, we focus on

preschool program characteristics, the least restrictive environment (LRE), the development of

IEPs, engagement with the CT Early Learning and Development Standards (ELDS), curriculum

practices, assessment, and professional development. Overall, the report highlights areas of

strong alignment to best practices and areas that would benefit from additional professional

development across preschool programs in CT.

Background Context

Starting in 1991, Part B of the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

addressed the provision of a “free and appropriate education” for school age children with

disabilities from ages three through 21 (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(B)). In order to receive federal

funding under IDEA, Part B, states must comply with all aspects of the law, which specifically

requires the delivery of education in each child’s LRE, and for school districts to provide

inclusive environments for children with disabilities to the greatest extent possible.

State policies governing publicly-funded preschool programs provide insight into how

states approach inclusive preschool education across the nation. The 2018 State of Preschool

Yearbook1 explored this topic and found that 79% of state-funded preschool programs reported

having state policies in place to support inclusion; CT was not one of these states. A deeper dive

into preschool inclusion policies across the country reveals concerning gaps between policies and

best practices. Only 42% of state-funded preschool programs require professional development

for teachers serving preschoolers with disabilities, and just 10% require coaching for those

teachers. Slightly more than half of programs (54%) require inclusion specialists to support

preschool teachers, but just 17% report following the Division of Early Childhood’s (DEC’s)

best practices. Further, only 44% of state preschool programs limit the number or percent of

preschoolers with disabilities in a given classroom. Even more revealing, only 43% of all state

preschool programs reported having policies in place to require that lead teachers in inclusive

preschool classrooms hold a certificate or endorsement in preschool special education indicating

that, in the majority of state preschool programs, children with disabilities in general education

classrooms are not being taught by a teacher who is specifically trained to meet their needs.

1 Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Barnett, W. S., Garver, K., A., Hodges, K. S., Weisenfeld, G. G., & DiCreccio, N. (2019),

The State of Preschool 2018: State of Preschool Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early

Education Research.



6

As of the 2018-2019 school year, federal IDEA data2 indicate that CT served 67% of

preschool children (ages 3, 4, and 5) with disabilities in regular early childhood settings for at

least ten hours per week and another 3% in regular education settings for less than ten hours per

week. Another 18% of preschoolers with disabilities were served in a separate (self-contained)

classroom, while 7% were served in a location other than a traditional early childhood program.

Finally, 4% of children were served by a separate service provider, and 1% in a separate school.

Of the 9,785 children ages 3 to 5-years-old receiving services under IDEA in CT, more

than 70% are male and just under 30% are female. Approximately 48% of preschoolers with an

IEP were White, 32% were Hispanic, 12% Black or African American, 4% Asian, and 4% Multi-

racial. More than half of CT’s preschoolers with disabilities (52%) are classified as having a

developmental delay, another 27% with a speech or language impairment, and 15% with Autism.

The remaining 6% fall into the categories of either hearing impairment (1%) or other disabilities

(5%).

Study Methods

Survey Development

The needs assessment about preschool special education in Connecticut was developed by

NIEER in close consultation with representatives from CSDE and a group of stakeholders. To

gather a complete, statewide picture of the structural and process elements of preschool quality

related to providing services for preschool-age children with IEPs, NIEER developed three

separate surveys tailored to three groups of individuals holding key roles: Directors of Special

Education, Early Childhood Education Supervisors, and school principals/center directors

(referred to as Site Directors). Triangulating information from Directors of Special Education,

Early Childhood Education Supervisors, and school principals/center directors (Site Directors)

provides a comprehensive understanding of the experiences of preschoolers with IEPs in

Connecticut. Additionally, each group provides a unique perspective that informs the landscape

of the experiences of preschoolers with IEPs in Connecticut.

Based on the original RFP, and with on-going guidance from CSDE, NIEER developed

survey questions to address the following primary areas of interest:

1. Early Childhood Program Structural Characteristics, including class size, teacher-to-

child ratio, number of preschoolers with IEPs compared to number of other preschoolers per

class, staff qualifications (including highest degree and any certifications earned), size of the

school/center, and ages of children served (including whether classrooms are mixed-age).

Data on respondent, teacher, and preschooler characteristics were also collected.

2. Least Restrictive Environments, including understanding of LRE, the number of children

with IEPs in general education and special education classrooms, the disabilities represented

in each type of classroom, a description of classroom environments, and a description of

2 Preschool Special Education Enrollment information provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Special Education Programs, Number of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Receiving Special Education and

Related Services by Age: Fall 2018. Table generated from 2018 Part B Child Count and Educational Environments

data in the EDFacts reporting system. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-

data-files/index.html

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html



7

related services provided (i.e., services provided and if they are push-in and/or pull out).

3. IEP Development, including the extent to which parents and teachers are involved in IEP

development, typical members of the IEP team, the level of collaboration among the IEP

team members, and a description of processes for establishing a preschooler’s IEP.

4. Use of the Connecticut Early Learning and Development Standards (ELDS), including

use of domains; training of preschool staff; alignment with other state standards, curriculum,

and assessments; and implementation in classrooms serving preschoolers with IEPs.

5. Curriculum, Professional Development & Family Engagement, including types of

curriculum used, adaptations made for children with an IEP, supports and training provided

to support practice, and strategies used to promote family engagement.3

NIEER reviewed existing surveys, observational tools, previous needs assessments

completed by NIEER, and nationally recommended practices for preschool-age children

receiving special education services to inform survey development. Tools included: The Teacher

Survey of Early Education Quality (TSEEQ)4, Division for Early Childhood (DEC) Checklists5,

the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP™)6, the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale®, 3rd

ed. (ECERS-3)7, and checklists developed by the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

(ECTA)8, among others.

NIEER first developed a question bank that covered all topics described above. Next we

selected which questions would be included in the survey for each of the three respondent

groups. Duplication of questions across respondents was done intentionally to collect data from

different perspectives on one topic. Because it was often the case that individuals had more than

one role in their districts (e.g. supervising special education and early childhood or being a

supervisor of either and a center director), surveys were adapted to combine the necessary

protocols. For example, we created a survey that combined questions in the Director of Special

Education and ECE Supervisor surveys so that one individual serving in both of those roles had

to only complete one survey. In addition to the three primary surveys, NIEER created four

additional surveys for individuals whose position crossed more than one of the three key roles.

The surveys were programmed in Qualtrics, a web-based survey platform, by NIEER

staff. Using a web-based survey eliminates the potential for data entry errors and saves time by

eliminating data entry, making it a time-efficient method to accurately collect the desired data.

Links to the web-based survey were emailed to respondents, along with a pdf file containing all

questions. Respondents were asked to actively consent to participate in the study.

Sample & Procedures

We focused on three groups of respondents in order to collect information from multiple

perspectives about the quality of the preschool environments in which 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old

children with IEPs are served in Connecticut. First, we reached out to the Director of Special

3 The original proposal also included a focus on understanding alignment with the CT Quality Rating Improvement

System (QRIS), however this topic was dropped from this research in consultation with CSDE. 4 http://nieer.org/research/research-instruments 5 https://ectacenter.org/decrp/type-checklists.asp 6 https://products.brookespublishing.com/The-Inclusive-Classroom-Profile-ICP-Set-Research-Edition-P969.aspx 7 https://www.ersi.info/ecers3.html 8 Available here: https://ectacenter.org/decrp/type-checklists.asp

http://nieer.org/research/research-instruments

https://ectacenter.org/decrp/type-checklists.asp

https://products.brookespublishing.com/The-Inclusive-Classroom-Profile-ICP-Set-Research-Edition-P969.aspx

https://www.ersi.info/ecers3.html

https://ectacenter.org/decrp/type-checklists.asp



8

Education in each of Connecticut’s 179 school districts and region/community programs.9

Directors of Special Education were surveyed to provide a special education perspective.

Second, we reach out to a random sample Early Childhood Education Supervisors (or the

equivalent position) across districts to provide an early childhood education perspective. And

third, we surveyed a random sample of school principals and center directors serving preschool-

age children with IEPs. All respondents received an electronic gift card as a thank you for

completing the survey.

In order to ensure data collected were representative of the state, the goal was to collect

data from the Director of Special Education in each school district and region/community

program, ECE Supervisors from 60 randomly selected districts, and site directors from 400

randomly selected schools and centers (within the same 60 districts as the sampled ECE

supervisors). We used stratified random sampling within District Reference Groups (DRGs) in

order to ensure the data collected was representative across all types of districts in the state. We

also over sampled within each DRG and had a randomly ordered list of alternates. However,

responses rates were lower than anticipated and in the end we distributed the ECE supervisor

survey to the ECE supervisor in each district. We also distributed the Site Director survey to all

schools/centers for which we had or were able to obtain contact information.

We received 114 responses from the 15310 Directors of Special Education contacted

(response rate of 75%), 63 responses from ECE Supervisors (out of 83 contacted, 76% response

rate), and 198 responses from 359 school principals or center directors contacts (55% response

rate).11 The 114 Directors of Special Education surveyed represented 123 school districts and

region/community programs10 or 70% of the 162 providing preschool. The 63 Early Childhood

Education Supervisors surveyed represented 65 school districts and region/community

programs12, or 108% of the targeted sample of 60. The surveys received from the contacted

Directors of Special Education and Early Childhood Supervisors are representative of each of the

nine DRGs in Connecticut. Table A below reports the number of surveys received per DRG and

the percentage of districts in each DRG for which data were collected from the Directors of

Special Education and the ECE Supervisors.13

9 While the goal was to engage all 179 school districts and region/community programs in CT, only 162 provided

preschool. 10 These 153 Directors of Special Education represent all school districts and region/community programs providing

preschool in Connecticut. Five of these 153 Directors supervised special education in more than one school district. 11 If a Site Director oversaw more than one preschool program site, we randomly selected one site about which for

them to complete the survey. 12 One of the Early Childhood Education Supervisors supervised two districts. 13 Nine Directors of Special Education and three Early Childhood Education respondents completed their survey for

a district or region/community program that was not rated in Connecticut’s 2016 DRG list. They are not included in

Table 1.



9

Table A. Preschool special education needs assessment responses by 2016 DRG

District Reference

Group (DRG)

Director of Special Education

Surveys

ECE Supervisor Surveys Site Director

Surveys

N % of DRG N % of DRG N

A 7 70% 3 30% 11

B 25 76% 13 39% 8

C 16 73% 9 41% 8

D 25 74% 11 32% 11

E 16 84% 3 16% 6

F 2 67% 2 67% 18

G 13 81% 10 63% 15

H 7 88% 5 63% 18

I 4 80% 4 80% 96

Survey protocols were initially deployed in December 2019 and data collection

continued through March 2020. Prior to data collection, NIEER conducted webinars to inform

potential respondents about the goals of the study and the purpose of the survey.

Several steps were taken to encourage respondents to complete the survey. Email

reminders were sent frequently and all respondents were called by NIEER staff to inform them

about the survey. Through these reminder emails and phone calls they were told that anyone who

completed the survey would be entered into lotteries for additional gift cards. Reminder emails

were also sent by CSDE.14 Additionally, to boost response rates, each respondent was mailed a

physical copy of their survey with postage for a return mailing and instructions for accessing

their survey online, as well as an additional gift card. Finally, we created shortened versions of

each survey during the last few weeks of data collection to include only the most essential items

for analysis, to encourage responses and reduce the time burden.

All data were cleaned and checked for completeness at NIEER and coded for analyses as

needed. Open ended questions were coded using emergent coding. Analyses below are

descriptive and focus on identify areas where there was variation in responses, capturing

differences across districts (or sites).

Results

1. What are the characteristics of the Preschool Programs in Connecticut that serve

preschool-age children with disabilities?

Leadership

Information was collected from three groups of respondents: Directors of Special Education,

Early Childhood Education Supervisors (i.e., whoever was in charge of preschool for the

districts), and school principals, child care center directors, and Head Start directors (referred to

in this report as Site Directors). In some cases, the same individual was in more than one of these

14 One lesson learned is that many survey recipients flagged emails from NIEER (who was relatively unknown to

them despite advanced warning of the surveys) as spam. The suspicions were heightened due to the high monetary

incentive for completing the survey.



10

roles and therefore responded to the questions for each of their roles. Below we describe the

characteristics of each of the three groups of respondents.

The Directors of Special Education in the sample had, on average, 5.1 years of

experience in their current position, ranging from 3 months to 20 years. All Directors of Special

Education had at least a Master’s degree (27%) though most had furthered their education

beyond a Master’s: 48% had a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS), 16% had a

doctoral level degree (Ph.D. or Ed.D.), and 8% had “other” educational background which

included working towards a doctoral degree. Their highest degrees tended to be in Special

Education, Leadership, Administration, and/or Elementary Education, while Early Childhood

Education/Preschool was missing for most. The most common Connecticut certifications/

endorsements were in Special Education (#055) and Administration (#092). Seventy-five percent

of Directors of Special Education reported prior experience as a classroom teacher, most

commonly in Special Education (not preschool/ECE; 84%) followed by middle or high school

(65%), and elementary school (49%). Thirty percent previously taught preschool special

education and 23% previously taught preschool; however, there is a large amount of overlap

between those who reported teaching preschool special education and special education so these

percentages should not be considered cumulative. Overall, 35% reported prior teaching

experience in preschool and/or preschool special education.15

The individuals who completed the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Supervisor

survey had a number of different roles in their districts including school principals (and assistant

principals), directors of special education, and ECE coordinators. Sometimes the person in the

ECE Supervisor role was also in the Director of Special Education role (23 people across 25

districts). The ECE Supervisors had, on average, 5.4 years of experience in their current role,

which ranged from less than 1 year to 21 years. All ECE supervisors had at least a bachelor’s

degree: 2% had a bachelor’s degree, 39% had a graduate degree (Masters, Ed.D., Ph.D.), 54%

had a CAGS, and 5% reported “Other” which included working towards a graduate degree.

Notably, only 17% of ECE Supervisors reported that their highest degree was in ECE. Special

Education was the most common area for their highest degree (23%). Nineteen percent reported

their highest degree was in Leadership, 19% in Administration, and 17% in Elementary

Education.16 The most common Connecticut certification/ endorsements held by the ECE

supervisors were Administration (#092, 47%), Special Education Pre-K-Grade 12 (#065, 38%),

and Elementary (#013, 28%). Twenty-seven percent had a prekindergarten (#001, #002, #003)

and/or Integrated early childhood/special education (#112 or #113) certification/endorsement.

Eighty-nine percent of ECE supervisors had prior teaching experience, most commonly in

elementary school (61%). However, 38% had prior teaching experience in preschool/ECE and/or

preschool special education. Forty-six percent reported teaching special education (other than

preschool special education) previously.

The individuals who completed the Site Director Survey were typically either public

school principals, child care center directors, or Head Start directors. On average, they had

been in their position as a principal or director for nine years but had been a principal or center

director at any school/center for an average of 13 years. Experience ranged from less than 1 year

15 Many survey questions allowed for respondents to “select all that apply”. Therefore, since respondents could

choose more than one response, percentages often will not add up to 100. 16 Note, it is possible that a lower degree was in ECE but for example their CAGS was in leadership. We only asked

about the field of the highest degree.



11

to 41 years. Individuals such as center directors17 who completed the survey about a child care

center tended to have the most experience on average (13 years total and 9 years in current

center), compared to Head Start directors (8 years total and 3 years in current center), and public

school principals (8 years and 4.8 in current school).

Sixty percent of the individuals who completed the Site Director Survey had a graduate

degree and 12% had a CAGS; 19% had a bachelor’s and 7% had less than a bachelor’s degree.

Nearly all school principals had a graduate degree. Child care center directors were most likely

to have a bachelor’s degree. Fifty-five percent of Site Directors reported that their highest degree

was in ECE; 8% reported developmental psychology and 20% reported child development as the

fields for their highest degree. Child care center directors and Head Start directors were more

likely than public school principals to have a background in ECE/Child

Development/Psychology. However, 45% reported that their highest degree was in elementary

education, 9% in middle school education, and 13% in high school education. Nineteen percent

reported their highest degree in special education; 14% in Leadership, and 19% in

Administration. Forty-seven percent of these individuals reported not holding a Connecticut

certification/endorsement. The most commonly held certification were in administration and

Elementary Education. Thirty-three percent had a certification in Special Education that covered

ECE and four percent has a special education certification that did not cover ECE. Nineteen

percent had a Pre-K – 3 certifications and 23% had a Pre-K -6 or Pre-K-8 certification. Child

care center directors and Head Start directors were more likely than public school principals to

have a background in ECE/Child Development/ Psychology. School principals were more likely

than center directors to have a background in special education.

Ninety-two percent of individuals completing the site director survey had previous

teaching experience, including 97% of school principals, 89% of child care center directors, and

87% of Head Start directors. About 50% reported prior teaching experience in Preschool/ECE,

45% in Elementary school, and only about 15% reported prior teaching experience in preschool

special education or special education more generally. However, nearly all child care center

directors and all Head Start directors reported prior preschool/ECE teaching experience

compared to approximately just 25% of school principals. On the other hand, school principals

were more likely to have prior special education teaching experience than center directors.

School Districts

Data were collected from districts across all nine DRGs (See Table A). And data from each of

the surveys were collected from participants in each DRG. Overall, across the three surveys, data

were collected from 131 different school districts.

ECE Supervisors were asked to report any state or federal funding that their district

preschool program receives. Forty-four districts reported receiving state funding from the School

Readiness Program, 30% reported receiving Title I funding, 16% IDEA funding, and 11% each

reported Head Start funding, CT Smart Start funding, or no state or federal funding (See Figure

1a). Twenty-seven percent of districts reported that their preschool programs were currently

licensed for preschool and another 18% reported that some preschool sites were licensed. Forty-

three percent of districts reported that preschool programs had completed a health and safety

17 Individuals who filled out the Site Director survey for a child care center will be referred to as child care center

directors; Individuals who filled out the Site Director survey for a Head Start center will be referred to as Head Start

directors; and Individuals who completed the survey for a public school will be referred to as school principals.



12

inspection by the CT Office of Early Childhood (OEC), and another 20% reported that some

preschool sites had completed the inspection.

ECE Supervisors were also asked about how children without IEPs were selected for

enrollment for their districts’ preschool programs. Responses indicated a variety of methods are

used. The most common methods reported included: a lottery (44% of districts), first come first

serve (36%), parents pay tuition (28%), priority to children from low-income families (25%),

priority to children who are at-risk of not being ready for kindergarten (25%), and priority to

Dual Language Learners (DLLs; 18%). Sixteen percent of districts also reported that children

were selected for enrollment based on the requirements of the funding stream. See Figure 1b for

additional detail.

Figure 1a. State and federal funding used to support districts’ preschool programs

44%

8%

11% 11%

30%

16%

3%

20%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

School

Readiness

Program

(SRP)

Child Day

Care

Contracts

Smart Start Head Start Title I IDEA PDG Other None



13

Figure 1b. Methods for selecting children without an IEP for preschool enrollment (reported

by ECE supervisors)

School and Child Care Centers Providing Preschool

School principals and center directors were asked to provide information about their schools and

centers, respectively. They reported that on average, schools/centers have the capacity to serve

78 preschool-age children, ranging from three to 763. Some principals/directors reported not

knowing their program’s capacity to serve preschoolers. On average, these programs actually

served 73 preschoolers, ranging from one to 763, suggesting that most programs were operating

at or close to capacity for serving preschoolers. On average schools/centers had 5.4 preschool

classrooms, ranging from one to 45.18 Schools/centers served a variety of age ranges of children.

The most common age ranges of children in the schools/centers were birth/6 weeks through

preschool, preschool only, preschool and elementary school, and infant/toddler through

elementary schools. A few sites housed programs that went through middle school.

Almost 52% of preschool programs in this sample were in public schools, 37% were

private child care providers, 10% were Head Start centers, and 10% were Magnet schools. (Note,

some programs reported more than one program type). There was one Charter School in the

sample and none reported being an approved private school for special education.19 See Figure

1c. Focusing on only the private child care centers in the sample, 71% reported being nonprofit,

26% for-profit, 10% independent, and none reported being part of a chain.

18 Principals/Directors were asked to report on the number of classes. One classroom with a morning and an

afternoon session should be considered two classes. 19 For analyses that present data by program type, programs are categorized as public schools (including magnet and

charter schools), private child care center, and Head Start programs (that did not also fall into one of the other

categories).

25%

18%

25%

36%

44%

28%

7%

11%

16%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Priority goes to children who are at-risk of not being ready

for kindergarten

Priority goes to Dual Language Learners

Priority goes to children from low-income families

First come, first serve

Lottery

Parents pay tuition

Decided at the provider level

All can attend/Resident

Determined by funding stream requirements

Other



14

Figure 1c. Type of preschool programs

Fifty-nine percent of preschool programs were reported to be licensed for child care and

another 21% were licensed-exempt. However, all Head Start centers and 94% of child care

centers reported being licensed for preschool and the other six percent reported being licensed

exempt. Only 26% of preschool programs in public schools reported being licensed with another

33% reporting being licensed exempt. Overall, 76% of programs reported completing a health

and safety inspection by the CT Office of Early Childhood, including 100% of Head Start

programs, 99% of private child care centers, and 52% of public school preschool programs.

The most common type of state or federal funding used by preschool programs in this

sample was Connecticut School Readiness funding which were utilized by 54% of preschool

programs (including 38% of public school programs, 73% of child care centers, and 73% of

Head Start programs). Programs also reported using Connecticut Child Day Care Contracts

(CDCC; 14%), Connecticut Smart Start (5%), Head Start (13%), Title I (15%), Care for Kids

(12%), IDEA (3%), Preschool Development Grants (2%)20, and other sources (8%). Seventeen

percent of programs reporting no state or federal funds. Figure 1d provides additional

information on funding sources used, including by program type.

20 IDEA, PDG, and Care for Kids were responses written in to the “Other” option for this question and therefore

may underestimate programs using these funding sources.

52%

37%

10% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Public School Child Care Center Head Start Magnet School



15

Figure 1d. State and federal funding used by preschool program type

Children without an IEP are selected for enrollment in preschool programs in a variety of

different ways. The most common way reported was on a first-come, first serve basis, followed

by parents paying tuition, determined by funding stream, and the use of a lottery. Programs also

reported prioritizing children from low-income families, children who are at-risk of not being

ready for kindergarten, and Dual Language Learners. Figure 1e provides more detail on selection

for enrollment, including by program type.

Figure 1e. Methods for selecting children without an IEP for preschool enrollment by

program type (reported by site directors)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

School

Readiness

Program

Child Day

Care

Contracts

Smart Start Head Start Title I Care for

Kids

IDEA PDG Other None

All Preschool Programs Public Schools Child Care Centers Head Start

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

First come,

first serve

Parents pay

Tuition

Per Funding

Stream

Lottery Priority to

Low-Income

Priority to At-

Risk

Priority to

DLLs

Other

All Preschool Programs Public Schools Child Care Centers Head Start



16

Preschool Classrooms

Directors of Special Education were asked to report on the number of preschool classrooms in

their districts. On average, they reported 3.35 full-day preschool classrooms (range: 0 to 66) and

4.69 part-day preschool classrooms (range: 0 to 30). Across the districts in the sample, 42% of

preschool classes were full-day and 58% were part-day.

Directors of Special Education reported an average of 2.76 special education classrooms

(range: 0 to 22), 4.83 general education preschool classrooms (range: 0 to 66), and 0.3 general

education preschool classrooms that did not serve any children with an IEP (range: 0 to 12).21

Across all districts in the sample 36% of preschool classrooms were special education, 55% were

general education that included children with an IEP, and eight percent were general education

classrooms that did not include any children with an IEP.

School principals/center directors also provided information about preschool classrooms

in their school/center. Across respondents, there was a total of 595 preschool classrooms, ranging

from one to 25 preschool classrooms per site. A total of 465 of those classrooms (78%) included

preschoolers with an IEP (ranging from one to 25 classrooms per site). Approximately 75% of

the classrooms in this sample were general education classrooms and 25% were special

education classrooms.21 In public schools, approximately 56% of preschool classrooms were

general education and 44% were special education. In both child care center and Head Start

programs, all preschool classrooms were general education.

There was an average of 17 preschoolers enrolled per preschool classroom (17 in public

schools, 17 in child care, 18 in Head Start), ranging from 1 to 40.22 And on average, there were

3.7 preschoolers with an IEP enrolled in a classroom, ranging from 0 to 25. In preschool

classrooms that had a least one child with an IEP, there was an average of 4.4 preschoolers with

an IEP (6.3 in public schools, 1.7 in child care, and 2.4 in Head Start), ranging from 1 to 25.

Across all preschool classrooms, there was an average of 1.6 lead teachers, 1.2

paraprofessionals not specifically assigned to a child, and 0.5 paraprofessionals assigned

specifically to one or more children with an IEP. These numbers varied across general and

special education preschool classrooms. In general education preschool classrooms, there was an

average of 1.7 lead teachers, 1 paraprofessional not specifically assigned to a child, and 0.3

paraprofessionals assigned specifically to one or more children with an IEP. And in preschool

special education classrooms, there was an average of 1 lead teacher, 1.9 paraprofessionals not

specifically assigned to a child, and 1.3 paraprofessionals assigned specifically to one or more

children with an IEP. Table 1a provides additional detail on staffing varies by program type.

21 A special education class was defined as a class where 50% or more of children in the class had an IEP. A general

education class was defined as a class where less than 50% of children in the class had an IEP. These definitions

were provided in the survey. 22 Preschool enrollment data are reported by classroom. Some classrooms may include more than one class or

session, leading to enrollment numbers that are higher than might be expected.



17

Table 1a. Average number of staff per classroom by classroom and program type

Teachers Only

Paraprofessionals (not

specifically assigned to a

child)

Paraprofessionals (assigned

to a child/children with an

IEP)

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All

Classrooms 1.6 1.1 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0

General

Education 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0

Special

Education 1.0 1.0 NA NA 1.9 1.9 NA NA 1.3 1.3 NA NA

Based on the number of preschoolers enrolled per classroom and the staff in each

classroom, we calculated child to teacher ratios in three different ways: based on only the lead

teacher, based on the lead teacher and paraprofessionals not assigned to a specific child, and

based on all teaching staff in the classroom. Table 1b summarizes the calculated child to teaching

staff ratios in the sample overall and by program type.

Table 1b. Child to teaching staff ratios in preschool classrooms

Teachers Only

Teachers and

Paraprofessionals (not

specifically assigned to a

child)

Teachers and All

Paraprofessional

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All Public

Schools

Child

Care

Head

Start

All Classrooms 12.7 16.0 8.9 10.9 7.5 7.4 7.1 8.9 7.0 6.4 6.9 8.9

General Education 12.3 16.7 8.9 10.9 7.8 8.3 7.1 8.9 7.3 7.2 6.9 8.9

Special Education 15.0 15.0 NA NA 6.0 6.0 NA NA 5.3 5.3 NA NA

Preschool Teaching Staff

The Director of Special Education in each district was asked to report on the number of staff that

work with preschoolers. This information is summarized in Table 1c. Across the districts for

which data were provided, there were a total of 580 lead preschool teachers, 786 preschool

paraprofessionals who were not assigned to specific children, and 427 preschool

paraprofessionals who were assigned to one or more specific children per their IEPs.

Directors of Special Education were also asked to report on the degrees and/or

certifications required for preschool teaching staff upon hiring. Most reported that lead teachers

in general education preschool classrooms were required to have at least a bachelor’s degree and

certification in either ECE or ECE Special Education. Nearly all reported that lead teachers in

special education preschool classrooms were required to have at least a bachelor’s degree and

certification in ECE special education. Paraprofessionals tended to be required to have either a

High School Diploma (or equivalent), or an Associate’s Degree (or equivalent), or pass the

ParaPro exam. A few reported a Bachelor’s degree was required or that there were no degree

requirements for paraprofessionals.



18

Table 1c. Summary of the number of staff working with preschoolers

Total Number of

Staff

Number of Full-

Time Staff

Number of Part-

Time Staff

Lead Preschool Teachers 580

Preschool Paraprofessionals (not 1:1) 786

Preschool Paraprofessionals (1:1) 427

Special Education Specialists 462 448 14

Directors/Principals 228 189 39

Social Workers 116 80 36

Nurses 172 124 48

Child Study Team Members 140 124 16

OT/PT Staff 217 113 104

Speech Therapists 213 169 44

BCBAs 80 45 35

Counselors 19 14 5

Other 141 130 11

Note: Not all district in the sample provided answers for each staff type.

School principals and center directors also provided information on staff that work with

preschoolers. On average, sites had 6 full-time lead preschool teachers, 2.6 part-time lead

preschool teachers, 5.7 full-time preschool paraprofessionals, and 2 part-time preschool

paraprofessionals. Table 1d summarizes additional detail on preschool staff at the site level.

Table 1d. Summary of preschool staff per site

Total Number of Staff Number of Full-Time Staff

Lead Preschool Teachers 6.0 2.6

Preschool Paraprofessionals 5.7 2.0

Special Education Specialists 1.3 0.5

Directors/Principals 1.3 0.2

Social Workers 0.9 0.3

Nurses 1.1 0.4

Child Study Team Members 1.2 0.2

OT/PT Staff 1.0 0.8

Speech Therapists 1.1 0.5

BCBAs 0.4 0.4

Counselors 0.2 0.1

Other 1.8 0.7

Demographic information (including race, ethnicity, and languages spoken) about

preschool lead teachers, paraprofessionals, and related services providers was also provided by

site directors. The majority of the staff that work with preschoolers were White, Non-Hispanic,

and spoke only English. However, child care center staff and Head Start staff tended to be more

diverse than preschool staff in public schools.23 Figures 1f through 1n provide additional detail

on preschool staff demographics overall and by program type.

23 Samples sizes were smaller for child care center teachers and particularly for Head Start staff, especially for

paraprofessionals and related service providers.



19

Figure 1f. Lead preschool teacher race by program type

Figure 1g. Lead preschool teacher ethnicity by program type

1% 2% 1%

18%

7%

28%39%1%

1%

9%

66%89%

50% 14%

5%8%

17%

7% 4%10%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool Lead Teachers Public Schools Child Care Head Start

American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Black/African American

Native Hawaiian White Multiracial

26%

9%

40%44%

74%

91%

60%56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino



20

Figure 1h. Lead preschool teacher languages spoken by program type

Figure 1i. Preschool paraprofessional race by program type

76%

91%

65%

50%

24%

9%

35%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


English Only Language Other than English

17%9%

30%

73%3%

67%76%

47%

27%

11% 9%17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals

Public Schools Child Care Head Start

Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian White Multiracial Other Race



21

Figure 1j. Preschool paraprofessional ethnicity by program type

Figure 1k. Preschool paraprofessional languages spoken by program type

30%23%

45%40%

70%77%

55%60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals



76% 80%

68%

53%

24% 20%

32%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals





22

Figure 1l. Preschool related services provider race by program type

Figure 1m. Preschool related services provider ethnicity by program type

15%7%

38% 33%

75% 89%40%

37%

3%

5% 20%

6%2%

18%10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool Related

Services Providers


Black/African American White Multiracial Other Race

19%12%

17%

75%

81%88%

83%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Services Providers





23

Figure 1n. Preschool related services provider languages spoken by program type

Nearly all (89%) lead preschool teachers had a bachelor’s degree or higher, including

99% of lead preschool teachers in public schools, 73% in child care, and 77% in Head Start.

Seventy-one percent of lead preschool teachers had at least a bachelor’s degree in ECE,

including 85% of lead preschool teachers in public schools, 61% in child care, and 47% in Head

Start. Another two percent had an alternative route certification in ECE and almost 4% were

reported to not have any degree in ECE. Seventy-nine percent of lead preschool teachers were

reported to have at least a bachelor’s degree in special education (including a CAGS), including

89% of lead preschool teachers in public schools, eight percent in child care and no Head Start

teachers. Almost 3% had an alternative route certification in special education, and 16% had no

degree in special education. Figures 1o through 1q provide additional detail on preschool lead

teacher highest degree by program type.

82%89%

79%

42%

18%11%

21%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Services Providers





24

Figure 1o. Lead preschool teacher highest degree by program type

Figure 1p. Lead preschool teacher highest degree in ECE by program type

54%

80%

20%

7%

34%

18%

53%70%

10%

25% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool Lead Teachers Public School Child Care Head Start

More than a BA/CAGS BA AA CDA HSD

26%

43%

11%3%

45%

42%

50%

44%

2%

4%20%

4%

32%

47%

3% 5% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


More than a BA/CAGS BA Alternate Route AA Some ECE credits CDA None



25

Figure 1q. Lead preschool teacher highest degree in special education by program type

Sixty-nine percent of lead preschool teachers had a CT preschool teaching certification,

57% had a CT special education teaching certification, and 25% had another CT teaching

certification. Preschool teachers in public schools were more likely than those in child care or

Head Start to have preschool or special education certification. See Figure 1r.

Figure 1r. Lead preschool teacher CT teaching certifications by program type

41%47%

4%

37%

42%

4%

3%

3%19%

8%

92%100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


More than a BA/CAGS BA Alternate Route None/Other

69%

57%

25%

93%

81%

30%

16%

4%7%

53%

0%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CT PreK Certification CT Special Ed Certification Other CT Certification




26

Sixty-four percent of preschool paraprofessionals were reported to have a bachelor’s

degree or higher, including 72% in public schools, 43% in child care, and 60% in Head Start.

Only 36% were reported to have a bachelor’s or higher in ECE including 41% in public schools,

26% in child care, and 50% in Head Start. Thirty percent of preschool paraprofessionals had no

degree or credits in ECE, though all Head Start paraprofessionals had some background in ECE.

Twenty-nine percent of preschool paraprofessionals had a BA or higher in special education

while 68% had no degree or credits in special education, including all Head Start

paraprofessionals. Twenty-five percent of preschool paraprofessionals were reported to have a

Child Development Associate (CDA), including 19% in public schools, 25% in child care, and

100% in Head Start. Figures 1s through 1v provide additional detail on preschool lead teacher

highest degree by program type.

Figure 1s. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree by program type

12%15%

8% 5%

51%

57%

35%

55%

19%15%

30%

20%

11% 6% 20%

20%6% 6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals

Public School Child Care Head Start

More than BA BA AA CDA HSD None/Other



27

Figure 1t. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree in ECE by program type

Figure 1u. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree in special education by program type

8% 11%4%

29%30%

22%

50%

26%23%

32%

20%7% 19%

10%

20%30%

37%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals


More than BA BA AA Some ECE credits CDA None/Other

10% 13%4%

19%24%

7%4%

70%63%

86%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals


More than BA BA Some ECE credits None/Other



28

Figure 1v. Preschool paraprofessional CDA by program type

Preschool Children

Both the Directors of Special Education and the Site Director (school principals/center directors)

were asked to provide information about preschoolers enrolled in their districts and programs,

respectively. We found that some of the information reported at the district and the site level did

not always match up. Two possible explanations for these discrepancies are: (1) the districts

included in the district-level and site-level samples are different, though there is some overlap;

and (2) it is possible that the districts did not always report on the children in their districts

served in child care and/or Head Start centers.24

Figure 1w displays the percent of preschoolers by race, both for all preschoolers and for

only preschoolers with IEPs as reported by the Directors of Special Education. On average, the

race breakdown of preschoolers with IEPs is very similar to the race breakdown of all

preschoolers. Figure 1x displays the percent of preschoolers by race for all preschoolers and for

only preschoolers with IEPs as reported by the site directors and also displays this information

for public schools, child care centers, and Head Start centers. On average, the race breakdown

for all preschoolers and for preschoolers with IEPs was very similar. The differences tended to

be across program type: a higher percentage of preschoolers in public schools were White

compared to in child care or in Head Start. Similarly, there were more Black/African American

preschoolers in child care and Head Start than in public schools. And there were more

preschoolers identified as “other race” in Head Start than in child care or public schools.

Additionally, there were some differences in the race breakdown of preschoolers from the

24 Additionally, the child care centers are over-represented in the larger, poorer DRGs which may partially explain

the differences in child demographics from the district-level and program-level data.

25%

19%

25%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschool

Paraprofessionals




29

district-level reports from the directors of special education and the program-level reports from

the site directors. The district level data indicated a higher percentage of preschoolers were

White and a lower percentage were White than the program/site level data. As mentioned

previously, this difference is likely because different districts were included in the two samples.

Figure 1w. Preschool children by race (reported by directors of special education)

Figure 1x. Preschool children by race and program type (reported by site directors)

7% 5%

16%15%

6%6%

60% 63%

9% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschoolers Preschoolers with an IEP

American Indian Asian Black Multiracial White Other Race

4% 6% 4%

22% 25% 15% 18%

29% 33%30% 28%

5% 8%11% 9%

6% 6%

16% 15% 15%5%

44% 44%56% 57%

33% 32%27%

28%

17% 18% 16% 16% 16% 18%23%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Preschoolers

All

Preschoolers

with an IEP

Public School Public School

- IEP

Child Care Child Care -

IEP

Head Start Head Start -

IEP

Asian Black Pacific Islander Two or More Races White Other



30

Figure 1y displays the Ethnic background of all preschoolers and those with IEPs and

Figure 1aa displays information on preschoolers’ home language, as reported by directors of

special education. For both preschoolers’ ethnicity and home language, the composition of all

preschoolers looks very similar to the composition of preschoolers with an IEP. Figures 1z and

1ab display similar information broken out by program type, as reported by site directors. There

is greater variation in both child Ethnicity and Home Language across program type than

between all preschoolers and preschoolers with IEPs. For example, Head Start programs had a

higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino preschoolers and preschoolers with a home language other

than English, followed by child care, and then public schools.

Figure 1y. Preschool children by ethnicity (reported by directors of special education)

32% 34%

68% 66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschoolers Preschoolers with IEPs




31

Figure 1z. Preschool children by ethnicity and program type (reported by site directors)

Figure 1aa. Preschool children by home language (reported by directors of special

education)

40% 44%31% 36%

47% 50%62% 63%

60% 56%69% 64%

53% 50%38% 37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Preschoolers

All

Preschoolers

with an IEP


- IEP


IEP


IEP


78% 81%

22% 19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


English Only Home Language other than English



32

Figure 1ab. Preschool children by home language and program type (reported by site

directors)

We asked Directors of Special Education and Site Directors to provide information about

preschoolers’ eligibility for free and/or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). They were asked to report

the number of preschoolers eligible for free lunch, reduced-price lunch, and free or reduced price

lunch if they did not know which. Figure 1ac shows the percent of children at the district level

eligible for FRPL and Figure 1ad displays this information at the site level. Eligibility for FRPL

was similar across public school and child care centers.25 About half of all children were eligible

for Free Lunch based on both sources of data with a slightly smaller percentage of preschoolers

with IEPs eligible for Free Lunch, compared to all preschoolers. The Site Level data suggest that

another 20% of children were eligible for Reduced Lunch or Free or Reduced Price Lunch. Some

child care centers reported that they did not collect data on FRPL eligibility because they did not

serve meals. Other schools reported that all children in the school receive free lunch and

therefore they did not have data on individual children.

25 FRPL data were only reported for 3 Head Start centers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Preschoolers

All

Preschoolers

with an IEP


- IEP


IEP


IEP

English Only Home Language other than English



33

Figure 1ac: Preschool children by eligibility for FRPL (reported by directors of special

education)

Figure 1ad: Preschool children by eligibility for FRPL (reported by site directors)

Figure 1ae provides information on the age of all preschool students and those with an

IEP as reported by the directors of special education. Whereas 32% of all preschoolers were 3-

years-old (including children 2.9 years) and 64% were 4-years-old, a higher percent of

preschoolers with IEPs were 3-years-old (45% were 3-years-old and 48% were 4-years-old).

This difference is not surprising given that most state- and locally-funded preschool programs

serve more 4-year-olds than 3-year-olds when thinking about the general education population.

Information on preschoolers’ age reported at the program level from the site directors

provides a slightly different picture (See Figure 1af). On average, 53% of all preschoolers were

4-year-olds and 42% were 3-year-olds. This compares to 57% of preschoolers with IEPs were 4-

year-olds and 39% were 3-year-olds. Somewhat surprisingly, with this program-level data we do

not see the increase in 3-year-olds among preschoolers with IEPs. The percent of preschoolers

with IEPs that were 3-year-olds was the smallest in Head Start (compared to public schools and

53%

1% 2%

43%

1% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Free Lunch Reduced Price Lunch Free or Reduced Price Lunch


56%

6%14%

55%

4%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Free Lunch Reduced Price Lunch Free or Reduced Price Lunch




34

child care). This is also somewhat surprising given that unlike public preschool, Head Start tends

to serve similar numbers of 3- and 4-year-olds.

Figure 1ae. Preschool children by age (reported by directors of special education)

Figure 1af. Preschool children by age and program type (reported by site directors)

Both the Directors of Special Education and the Site Directors were asked to provide

information about preschoolers’ disabilities (per their IEPs). Table 1e summarizes this

32%

45%

64%

48%

5% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Preschoolers Preschoolers with an IEP

3-year-olds 4-year-olds 5-year-olds

42% 39% 41% 40%47%

41% 38%

25%

53% 57% 56% 57%50%

55%52%

65%

4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%10% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Preschoolers

All

Preschoolers

with IEPs


- IEP


IEP


IEP

3-year-olds 4-year-olds 5-year-olds



35

information, including by program type for the site director-reported information. Similar to

federal IDEA data for CT (described in the Introduction), Developmental Delay was the most

common disability among preschoolers, followed by speech or language impairment, and

Autism. There were some differences in preschoolers’ disabilities across program type: there was

a higher percentage of preschoolers with a developmental delay in public schools, then Head

Start, and child care, and there was a higher percentage of preschoolers with a Speech or

Language Impairment in child care than in Head Start or public schools.

Table 1e. Preschool enrollment by disability type

Reported by

Director of Special

Education

Reported by Site Director

All

Preschoolers

with an IEP

Public

School

Child

Care

Head

Start

Autism 17.3% 20.6% 20.6% 20.1% 22.7%

Developmental Delay 59.2% 40.0% 52.6% 21.7% 39.0%

Deafness 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0%

Emotional Disturbance 0.0% 2.4% 0.5% 5.8% 0.0%

Hearing Impairment 0.5% 1.1% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0%

Intellectual Disability 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0%

Multiple Disabilities 1.0% 2.9% 1.7% 3.1% 7.3%

Orthopedic Impairment 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8%

Other Health Impairment 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0%

Specific Learning Disability 0.2% 2.4% 2.7% 2.4% 0.8%

Speech or Language Impairment 20.0% 26.8% 19.2% 36.2% 29.4%

Traumatic Brain Injury 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Visual Impairment 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

IEP information not shared Not asked 1.9% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0%

Figure 1ag provides information on preschool program operating schedules as reported by

site directors. Respondents were provided with the following operating schedule definitions:

Part-Day/Part-Year: 2.5 hours per day, 5 days per week, minimum 180 days per year

School-Day/School-Year: 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, minimum 180 days per year

Full-Day/Full-Year: 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year

Extended-Day: extended part-day to provide 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks

per year

On average, all preschoolers and preschoolers with an IEP attended programs with similar

operating schedules: 32% of all preschoolers and 36% of preschoolers with IEPs attended part-

day preschool programs; 16% of all preschoolers and 17% of preschoolers with IEPs attended

school-day preschool programs; 48% of all preschoolers and 41% of preschoolers with IEPs

attended full-day preschool programs; 4% of all preschoolers and 6% of preschoolers with IEPs

attended extended-day preschool programs. Although preschoolers with IEPs were slightly more

likely to attend part-day programs than preschoolers generally, there was more variation across

program type than between preschoolers with and without an IEP. Part-day programs were most

common in public schools (compared to child care and Head Start): About half of preschoolers

in public schools were in part-day programs. Full-day was the most common operating schedule

in both child care and Head Start, though in child care, preschoolers with an IEP were slightly



36

less likely to be in full-day program (and slightly more likely to be in part-day programs) than all

preschoolers.

Figure 1ag: Preschool enrollment by operating schedule (reported by site director)

Information was also collected about the settings in which preschoolers with IEPs

received special education services (reported by Director of Special Education, see Figure 1ah).

District-operated general education classes (37%) and Special Education classes (37%) were the

most common settings reported. Twelve percent of preschoolers with an IEP received their

special education services in a combination of general and special education classes. A total of

8% received services in community-based general education classrooms and 6% received only

services (e.g., speech, OT, PT) from the school district.

32% 36%

48%53%

8%13% 18% 15%

16%17%

25%24%

5%

9%5%

3%

48% 41%

25% 21%

86% 71%

54%58%

4% 6% 2% 2% 1%7%

24% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Preschoolers

All

Preschoolers

with IEPs


- IEP


IEP


IEP

Part-Day School-Day Full-Day Extended-Day



37

Figure 1ah: Settings in which preschoolers with IEPs received special education services

School principals and center directors were also asked about the types of classrooms in

which preschoolers with IEPs in their schools/centers received services. On average, the most

common setting was general education preschool classrooms, followed by a combination of

general education and special education preschool classrooms. As shown in Table 1f, this pattern

was generally consistent across program type.

Table 1f: Average number of preschoolers with an IEP by type of preschool classrooms per

school/center

All

Settings

Public

Schools

Child Care Head Start

General Education Classrooms 19.2 18.2 15.5 45.5

Special Education Classrooms 3.9 7.4 0.1 0.3

Individual Services Only (e.g., speech, PT, OT) 2.5 3.3 1.0 4.2

Combination of General & Special Education

Classrooms 7.3 8.2 4.6 13.9

Table 1g provides information about the number of preschoolers per school/center for

whom transportation is a related service on their IEP (as reported by site directors). On average,

more children enrolled in preschool classrooms than children only receiving individual related

services also had transportation services on their IEPs. More children in public schools, followed

by Head Start, and then child care had transportation services on their IEPs. Directors of special

education also provided information on transportation as a related service on preschoolers’ IEPs.

According to them, 52% of preschoolers with an IEP who were enrolled in a preschool

classroom had transportation as related services on their IEP. However, only 5% of preschools

with an IEP who were receiving only services from the districts had transportation as a related

service on their IEP.

37%

8%

37%

6%

12%

District-operated general

education class

Community-based general

education class

Special education class

Receive services only from the

district

Combination of general and

special education classes



38

Table 1g: Average number of preschoolers with an IEP for whom transportation is a

related service on their IEP

All Settings Public

Schools

Child Care Head Start

Preschoolers with IEPs receiving individual

services only (e.g., speech, PT, OT) 2.7 3.3 1.8 3.0

Preschooler with IEPs enrolled in preschool

classrooms 10.2 15.6 3.1 8.7

2. To what extent do preschool classrooms in CT serving children with IEPs provide them

with an education in their least restrictive environment?

NIEER explore the extent to which preschool classrooms in CT were providing preschoolers

with an IEP an education in their Least Restrictive Environment. We explored the distribution of

children with and without IEP in classrooms and inclusion policies and practices. Survey

respondents were asked to provide their interpretation/understanding of LRE and the concept of

natural proportions.

The focus of the analysis presented in this section is the way districts and programs

define and operationalize LRE. IDEA26 defines LRE as meaning that children with an IEP

should spend as much time as possible with peers who do not receive special education services.

Therefore, it encompasses two notions: (a) inclusion in activities and environments with children

without an IEP, and (b) to the maximum extent possible/appropriate. Another important notion

that arises from IDEA is that of a continuum27 to meet the needs of children that ranges from

inclusive settings with various possible supports through separate environments for children only

in severe cases when supporting the child’s needs in inclusive settings cannot be successfully

achieved.

Proportion of preschoolers in a classroom with an IEP

On average, about 28% to 30% of preschoolers in a classroom had an IEP (based on data

reported by site directors). 28 The average is about 35% when considering only 4-year olds.

These averages hide a significant amount of variation, with the percentage ranging between 3%

and 100%. The majority of the classrooms with at least one child with an IEP (75%) have

inclusion rates under the 50% cutoff for a General Education classroom. Only 25% of the

classrooms would therefore be considered Special Education classrooms. Having said this, the

distribution of the percent of preschoolers with an IEP per classroom (Figure 2a) shows that

there is some concentration observed around the 50% cutoff between General and Special

Education classrooms.

26 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114 27 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.115 28 The difference emerges from responses on enrollment by age group versus responses by type of program.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.115



39

Figure 2a. Distribution of percent of preschoolers with an IEP per classroom

Note: Only includes preschool classrooms with at least one child with an IEP.

The portion of preschoolers with an IEP per classroom based on children enrollment

reported at the site level is slightly different from the sites’ categorization of classes as General

Education (<50% children with an IEP) or Special Education (equal or greater than 50%). Site

directors reported on average 86% of their classrooms as General Education (10 percentage

points higher than our calculations based on enrollment reports by classroom). Said another way,

there were some classrooms categorized as General or Special Education by the site director that

did not meet those definitions when exploring the child enrollment per classroom data.

Inclusion policies

We asked informants whether the district has written inclusion policies, and the extent to which

these are shared with families. About 70% of Directors of Special Education responded that their

district had no written inclusion policies, another 4% indicated these existed in some sites only,

and about 27% indicated these their district did have written policies. Among the districts that

had written inclusion policies, about two-thirds reported these were shared with families. The

percentage of ECE Supervisors reporting such policies were in place in the district is lower,

about 55%, though a similar percentage reported these policies (when in place) where always or

sometimes shared with families.

Ensuring children with IEPs are served in their LRE

Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors were both asked to describe how their

district ensures that preschool children with special needs receive their education in the LRE.



40

Open responses were coded with deductive29 and emergent30 coding. When coding the data, we

kept in mind that the definition of LRE in IDEA includes the concept of integration with children

without special needs, as well as the concept of time spent with peers without IEPs to the greatest

extent possible. In addition, we also incorporated the concept of a continuum defined earlier.

One concept that emerged from responses is the definition of LRE based on a setting,

classroom, space or environment. This emerged in 48% of responses from the Directors of

Special Education and 32% of responses from the ECE Supervisors. In addition, some responses

included the idea that LRE was dependent on the mandated inclusion ratios (under 50%) in the

state. In contrast, and more in line with IDEA, some responses related LRE to being in an

environment with peers without an IEP. This was the case for 57% of responses from the

Directors of Special Education and 32% of ECE Supervisors’ responses. In addition, 55% of the

Directors of Special Education and 43% of the ECE Supervisors’ responses included the concept

of time (maximum amount of time in LRE or with peers without an IEP). Both of the latter two

concepts were present in the responses from 50% of the Directors of Special Education and 42%

of ECE Supervisors. Lastly, only a few respondents included some notion of continuums of

LRE: 6% of Directors of Special Education and 9% of ECE Supervisors.

Below are some examples of responses that included notions of LRE aligned with IDEA:

Least restrictive environment is a continuum of environments in which children

can receive the most educational benefit. The continuum begins with education in

the general education classroom with typical peers with supplementary supports

and services in the school where the child would attend if they did not have an

IEP. [ECE Supervisor 6]

LRE is an education environment where children with needs are fully integrated

with typical peers and receive their services within their classroom. All of our

preschool classes are integrated but with our overwhelming special needs our

percentage is near to 50%. [SpED Director 37]

In contrast, examples of responses that did not demonstrate understanding of the concepts

and meaning of IDEA include:

A ratio no larger than 50% of disable[d] students. [SpED Director 10]

50% Peer / 50% SPEP students that make up the student population [ECE

Supervisor 1]

Some concerning responses described LRE as including the least amount of supports

needed:

29 Deductive codes included were based on IDEA. 30 Emergent codes are codes that emerged from the data.



41

A learning environment in which students have only as much support as they

need. Typically, that means they spend a much time as possible with typically

developing peers. [SpED Director 6]

Learning in a classroom in a large group setting with the opportunity to engage

with typically developing peers with the least amount of supports. [SpED Director

32]

One theme that emerged out of these responses is that there is some variation in the

language used to talk about children with an IEP and children without an IEP (Figure 2b, as

reported by Directors of special education). Language used includes children with special needs,

children disabled or with a disability, children with an IEP, and children with special education.

For children without an IEP language in responses included the concepts of typically developing,

non-disabled, general education, without special education or without special needs.

Figure 2b. Language used for children with and without IEPs

In addition, we performed frequency cloud analyses on the language used in reference to

LRE (Appendix Figure A.1). There were strong similarities between responses from the

Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors, with strong emphasis from both on

“education”, “peers”, and “disabilities”.

We also asked Directors of Special Education and ECE supervisors to describe how their

districts ensure that preschool children with special needs receive their education in the LRE. A

central theme that emerged is that all classrooms are inclusion settings. In addition, there were

many responses that described this occurred in relation to children’s needs and/or as defined by

the PPT (Planning and Placement Team) meeting in the general sense, without description of

specific strategies. A few other themes that emerged were the use of push-in vs. pull-outs,

maintaining less than 50% of children in a classroom with an IEP, and using part-day

accommodations in general education settings, sometimes in a separate school with transitions

8%

48%

34%

10%

Language used for children without IEPs

General Ed Non disabled

Typically developing Without Special Education

22%

19%

9%

50%

Language used for children with IEPs

With Special Education With an IEP

With Special Needs With a Disability



42

between schools. Figure 2c below shows how these themes emerge (as reported by Directors of

Special Education (SpED) and ECE Supervisors (ECE)).

Figure 2c. How districts ensure children with IEPs receive education in LREs

Policies to support children with IEPs

In the survey we asked all three groups of respondents to identify which of a series of policies

are in place in their district/site to support children with an IEP (See Figure 2d). Among the

policies listed in the survey, the ones more consistently present across districts and sites were the

presence of established procedures for identifying children at risk of developmental delay or a

learning disability, the requirement that teachers are part of the PPT meeting, the requirement

that teachers have access to the IEP plans for all their children with an IEP, policies or

procedures on how often are IEP plans reviewed, and a requirement that preschool teachers in

inclusion classroom have special education qualifications. In contrast, policies that are less likely

to be in place are written and shared inclusion policies, coaching of preschool teachers about

special needs, inclusion specialists available to support schools and/or teachers, written policies

affirming natural proportions, and requirements to follow DEC recommended practices. These

patterns are quite comparable across respondents, with small variations. Interestingly, there is

variation across respondents with regards to policies limiting the maximum proportion of

preschoolers with an IEP in a preschool classroom; however, across the three respondent groups,

the percent selecting this response was low, surpassing 50% for only the ECE Supervisors.

43%

12%

4%

5%

4%

8%

14%

43%

6%

6%

42%

15%

9%

6%

9%

4%

9%

43%

2%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Describe all classrooms as inclusion

Mention push-in

Mention strive for inclusion

Mention "some time" or "part day" inclusion

Mention pull-outs

Mention <50% ratios

Mention 50% ratios

Mentioned defined by needs/PPT

Mention use of LRE checklist

Mention continuum

SpED ECE



43

Figure 2d. Policies in place to support the provision of services to children with an IEP

In addition, we asked the Directors of Special Education about the frequency with which

preschool teachers used the concepts of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)31 in their

classrooms. Twenty-four percent reported that their preschool teachers always use UDL, 33%

reported teaches using it often, 15% reported sometimes, and 28% reported not knowing, not

using it, or using rarely. Site Directors were also asked how often preschool teachers consider the

principles of UDL to create accessible learning environments. Almost one-third were unsure

whether teachers use UDL principles, but 45% said teachers use them always or often. This

question was complemented by asking Site Directors the extent to which there were

accommodations or modifications made in materials and the environments, and about variations

made to the daily schedule, so that preschoolers with IEPs can fully participate in their classroom

(Figure 2e). The majority (about 75-85%) of site directors reported these were often or always

made.

31 “Universal Design for Learning (UDL) reflects practices that provide multiple and varied formats for instruction

and learning. UDL principles and practices help to ensure that every young child has access to learning

environments, to typical home or educational routines and activities, and to the general education curriculum.” See

https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-

statements/DEC_NAEYC_EC_updatedKS.pdf

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Written & shared inclusion policy

Procedures for identifying a child at risk of developmental

delay/learning disability

Requires teachers participate in PPT meetings

Requires teachers have IEP plans for all their children with

a disability

Policies/procedures on how often IEP plans are reviewed

Preschool teachers are required to have special education

qualifications

Specialized professional development required for

preschool teachers serving children with special needs

Requires coaching of preschool teachers about special

needs

Inclusion specialists are available to support preschool

teachers and/or children

Limits on the maximum proportion/number of children

with an IEP allowed in a preschool classroom

Requires following DEC best practices

Written policy affirming the principle of natural

proportions in preschool

Center Director ECE Director SpEd Director

https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/DEC_NAEYC_EC_updatedKS.pdf

https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/DEC_NAEYC_EC_updatedKS.pdf



44

Figure 2e. Supports for preschoolers with IEPs in their classrooms

Do schools maintain natural proportions of preschoolers with IEPs in classrooms?

The principle of natural proportions means that children with disabilities are included in

preschool classrooms in proportion to their presence in the general population. We asked

Directors of Special Education if their district maintains a natural proportion of preschoolers

with special needs most of the time in their preschool classrooms; 64% responded they did so,

25% responded that they did not, and 11% responded that they did not know if natural

proportions were maintained in preschool. ECE Supervisors were asked the same question and

responses indicated a higher percentage of districts did maintain natural proportions of

preschoolers with IEPs in classrooms (73%). Finally, 63% of the site directors reported natural

proportions were maintained in classrooms at their schools and centers.

We also asked Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors to provide additional

information about the district's policy regarding natural proportions of children with special

needs in preschool classrooms. From these responses emerged a focus on maintaining a ratio of

preschoolers with IEP to general education preschoolers that was 50% or lower. There were very

few responses that aligned to the definition of natural proportions related to the incidence of

preschoolers with IEPs in the general population. See Figure 2f.

45%

58%

59%

31%

31%

28%

19%

9%

11%

5%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Variations made to daily schedule to meeting individual

needs of preschoolers with IEPs

Accomodations/Modifications made in environment so

preschoolers with IEPs can fully participate

Accomodations/Modifications made in materials so

preschoolers with IEPs can fully participate

Always Often Sometimes Rarely



45

Figure 2f. Ways of defining Natural Proportions

Additionally, frequency cloud analysis on the language of their responses (see Appendix Figure

A.3) shows distinct differences between the responses from Directors of Special Education and

those of ECE Supervisors. There are identifiable differences in how these two groups

conceptualize and seem to understand LREs. The concept of population is much more present in

responses from ECE Supervisors.

Related services

Both Directors of Special Education and Site Directors were asked about the settings/formats in

which preschoolers with IEPs received related services such as speech, physical therapy, and

occupational therapy. Figure 2g shows the responses from the Directors of Special Education and

shows that speech and language therapy, physical therapy and occupational therapy are most

commonly provided through a combination of push in and pull out services. Applied behavioral

therapy, psychology, and social work services are provided through either push in or push out.

Results were similar as reported by the Site Directors (See Appendix Figure A2).

Directors of Special Education and Site Directors were asked to identify the most

common formats for push in services. Responses indicate that the most common format for push

in services are for these to be provided in naturally occurring settings. Small group observations

and a combination of settings were also frequently reported (Figure 2h). Site Directors were less

likely than Directors of Special Education to report that a combination of strategies or small

group opportunities were used for push in services.

27%

36%

30%

12%

24%

49%

2%

36%

18%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Defintion on 50% inclusion ratio

In general education

Unclear

Defintion in relation to a ratio of 30-40%

Reflects Natural Proportion Definition

SpED Director ECE Supervisor



46

Figure 2g. Format of IEP related services as reported by directors of special education

Note: This question was also asked to site directors, and similar patterns emerged.

Figure 2h. Format for push-in services, by informant

11%

6%

13%

43%

38%

25%

20%

33%

12%

35%

18%

4%

21%

14%

12%

8%

76%

59%

69%

49%

39%

51%

41%

33%

4%

3%

11%

27%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Speech and/or Language Therapy

Physical Therapy

Occupational Therapy

Behavioral Therapy

Applied Behavior Analysis

Psychology

Social Work

Other Services

Usually Push In Usually Pull Out Sometimes Push In & Sometimes Pull Out Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Naturally occuring setting Separate area of the room Combination of settings Small group opportunities

SpEd Director Site Director



47

3. How are IEPs developed?

Policies and procedures for referrals

Almost all Directors of Special Education (98%) and ECE Supervisors (98%) reported having

specific policies and/or procedures in place to refer preschoolers for special education services,

and only slightly fewer Site Directors reported the same (93%). Similarly, 90% of Directors of

Special Education, 89% of ECE Supervisors, and 85% of Site Directors responded that all

teachers are aware of the process for referring a preschooler for special education services, and

none responded that teachers are unaware of procedures.

Policies for inclusion

Over two-thirds of Site Directors reported having a written inclusion policy in place for their

school or center. Of those that did, 88% reported that it was shared with families.

Family involvement in the development of IEPs

Families are involved in the development of preschoolers’ IEPs in a variety of different ways and

at various frequencies in programs and districts across the state (see Figure 3a and Table 3b).

Directors of Special Education reported that the PPT meets with families to discuss IEP plans

either annually (50%) or multiple times per year (50%), and more than 75% of Site Directors

reported these meetings taking place multiple times per year. According to Directors of Special

Education, progress reports are shared with families multiple times per year (97%), and over

75% reported translating reports into some or all home languages spoken by families. Progress

reports are shared primarily a few times per year or monthly, according to Site Directors, and

over 80% reported translating reports into some or all home languages spoken by families.

There were differences in the frequency of meetings between teachers and families to

discuss child progress as reported by Directors of Special Education and Site Directors. About

80% of Directors of Special Education reported that parent-teacher meetings take place several

times per year and about 15% reported meetings occurring monthly. However, 43% of Site

Directors reported meetings taking place multiple times per year, and 39% reported weekly

meetings.

Directors of Special Education reported that families have the opportunity to provide

feedback mostly weekly (39%) or a few times per year (about 43%). A similar percentage of Site

Directors said that families can provide feedback multiple times per year (38%), but 43% said

this happens only annually.

Finally, special education directors were asked about the frequency with which families

are engaged in the development of IEP goals, and the majority (over 60%) responded that this

happens annually, with just under 40% reporting that families are engaged more frequently (e.g.,

multiple times per year).



48

Figure 3a: Family involvement in IEP development, reported by directors of special

education

Figure 3b: Family involvement in IEP development, reported by site directors

49%

5% 8%

63%

51%

97%80%

43%

36%

15%

9%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PPT and families meet

to plan for/discuss

child

Progress reports are

shared with families

Teachers and families

meet to discuss child's

progress

Families have the

opportunity to provide

feedback

Families engaged in

development of IEP

goals

Annually A few times per year Monthly Biweekly Weekly

7% 5%12%

42%

78%

69%

43%

38%

8%

17%

12%

8%

2%

2%

3%

7% 8%

32%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PPT and families meet to

plan for/discuss child

Progress reports are shared

with families

Teachers and families meet

to discuss child's progress

Families have the

opportunity to provide

feedback

Annually A few times per year Monthly Biweekly Weekly



49

Description of the referral process and IEP development

ECE Supervisors and the Directors of Special Education were asked to describe the steps their

districts take when referring a preschool child for special education services. Responses to these

question differed in language used around the role of parents and families (with different roles

mentioned: for consent, as referring agents, as participants). There were also differences between

the two respondent groups in the percent of responses that included families, assessment, and

PPTs in their description of the process. Responses were coded for emergent patterns and are

described in Figure 3c. Most responses described the process up to the PPT1 meeting, and a few

responses also included the process post PPT1 meeting. Additionally, some responses,

particularly from the ECE Supervisor just referred to state regulation as the description of the

referral process.

A small percentage of respondents mentioned the use of data in the initial process. About

a fourth of respondents mentioned CST or SRBI as steps that precede the referral to special

education. A similar percentage of Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors

mentioned Child Find and its role in the referral process. Some responses (17-27%) included

parents in some role, assessment, and the PPT meetings in their description of the IEP

establishment. Very few (6-12%) mentioned IEP development and/or the establishment of IEP

goals as part of this process. To a higher degree, responses from Directors of Special Education

and ECE Supervisors referred to the use of assessments or evaluations, mentioned the role of

teachers in referrals and meetings, and mentioned parents in some role (referral, consent, etc.). A

few of the responses brought up the role of CST and in-classroom interventions as part of a

continuum towards IEP development when necessary.

Figure 3c. Descriptions of the special education referral process

9%

23%

30%

45%

36%

6%

17%

19%

26%

4%

14%

26%

52%

20%

36%

12%

27%

19%

23%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Talked about interventions by CST before further…

Mentioned screening as part of the initial process

Mentioned the role of parents in referrals, and/or…

Mentioned the role of teachers in referrals or…

Referred to assessments or evaluations post PPT1…

Included IEP development in their response

Included Parents, Assessment and PPT meeting in…

Mentioned the role of Child Find in referrals

Described CST or SRBI role previous to referring…

Mentioned use of data in initial processes

SpED Director ECE Supervisor



50

Responses to the question about steps the district takes when referring a child for special

education services varied from limited descriptions without detail on the referral process, such

as:

[F]orm needs to be filled out and PPT meeting is set. [SpED 29]

[E]vidence of research based intervention based on area of concern. [ECE 16]

To responses that acknowledge the different roles and actions that are undertaken in the

process of establishing the IEP, and the actions that may precede this process in terms of

referrals and in relation to working with the teaching teams within the classroom, such as:

Referrals can be initiated by Parental (due to pediatrician, daycare, or other

source) concerns. Child find is listed on our website. Mailings to area families

with children 2+ years old. Flyers are located throughout the community

(Library, pediatrician offices, daycares). We offer playdates (early intervention

screenings 4x/yr.) [ECE 27]

The team discussed student concerns on an on-going basis, implements

interventions for a period of time. All teachers have integrated degrees so they

are able to provide developmentally appropriate interventions prior to referral.

Once a referral is made through the team or parent, a comprehensive evaluation

including observation is completed. [SpED 66]

Children are screened upon registering for PreK with the Ages and Stages

diagnostic tool. If a child presents with cognitive or social/emotional delays, they

are referred to the Pupil Services Department for further evaluation. If a child

presents after they are enrolled, the staff can make a referral through the SRBI

process. The child is evaluated by the SRBI team and strategies can be offered to

support the child. If the child does not begin to make progress, the Pupil Services

department is notified to ascertain if additional supports/testing and placement is

needed. [ECE 12]

Similarly, Directors of Special Education were also asked to describe the process used to

establish an IEP. About two-thirds mentioned assessment and/or evaluation (61%), about one

third included parents or families in their description of the process (38%). Another two-thirds

defined the process around convening the PPT (63%). Some of the Directors of Special

Education discussed progress measurement in their description (9%), yet the responses more

often mentioned the establishment of goals (35%) and/or the recommendation of services (21%).

A small percentage described the IEP process in relation to following the CT ELDS or state or

federal guidelines (9%).

The examples below show contrasting descriptions of this process:

A multidisciplinary team inclusive of parents and general education teacher at a

PPT determine a disability which requires specialized instruction to close the gap

between the student's skills and age level skills. Assessment data from a variety of



51

sources is used to inform the IEP. There is a through-line beginning with Present

Levels of Performance including general education classroom data gathered

through planned experiences, natural experiences, and parent input. There are

formal assessment results from the evaluation. SMART IEP goals and objectives

are developed to be mastered within a year's time. Assessment procedures are

identified to measure progress. Student's IEP progress is evaluated at report card

reporting periods. Accommodations and modifications are included considering

AT and transportation, Frequency or services, description of participation in

general education, and justification for removal for services is included. Parents

always receive Procedural Safeguards and Prior Written Notice as partners in

the development of the IEP. IEP aligns with state standards. [SpED 7]

[D]epends on student’s needs [SpED 24]

Evaluation results, clinical observations, IEP's, medical findings are used to write

specific goals and objectives for a preschool IEP. [SpED 33]

In addition, Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors’ responses about the

IEP referral process were analyzed using word frequency clouds. Responses from both groups of

respondents closely resembled each other (Figure A.4 in the Appendix). Most prevalent in these

responses were the concepts of “evaluation”, “parent” and “PPT” meetings. Frequency cloud

analyses about the process of IEPs development as reported by the Directors of Special

Education also show a prevalence “evaluation”, “parent” and “PPT”, as well as the inclusion of

“goals” and “objectives” and “team”. The concept of the “review” also comes up in these

responses (Figure A.5 in the Appendix).

Role of preschool teachers in IEP development and their access to IEP information

Preschool teachers are frequently members of the IEP PPT (see following section), and are often

provided with support to attend PPT meetings. Three-quarters of Directors of Special Education

reported that preschool teachers are always provided with support or coverage to attend PPT

meetings, and two-thirds of Site Directors reported the same. One slight difference between

responses from Directors of Special Education and Site Directors is that 5% of the latter reported

that coverage is provided rarely or never. No Directors of Special Education reported that

teachers are never or rarely provided with coverage to attend PPT meetings. When coverage is

provided, floating teachers or paraprofessionals are used most frequently (77%), with an

administrative staff member the next most frequently used (34%).

Site Directors provided interesting information about teachers’ access to IEP information

and opportunities to collaborate and plan with relevant staff regarding IEPs goals and progress.

The majority of Site Directors said that their teachers have access to child assessment data

(69%), children’s behavior intervention plans (72%), and children’s progress reports (72%) for

all children with IEPs in their classroom (see Figure 3c). Another 16-18% said that this

information was available to teachers for at least some of the preschoolers with IEPs in their

classroom.



52

Figure 3d: Preschool teachers access to information about preschoolers with IEPs?

Just over a quarter of Site Directors reported that preschool teachers always consult with

therapists/specialists to plan lessons addressing specific IEP goals and objectives, 39% said this

often takes places, and 23% said it sometimes takes place (see Figure 3e). Only 11% reported

that this takes place rarely or never. When asked whether IEP goals are embedded into regular

classroom routines and activities, 40% reported they always are, 43% that they often are, and

14% that they sometimes are. Only 4% said that they rarely or never are.

Figure 3e: Do preschool teachers have access to the following information about

preschoolers with IEPs?

69% 72% 72%

18%18% 16%

12% 10% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Child assessment data Children’s behavior intervention plans Children’s progress reports

Yes, for all children Yes, for some children No

9%

23%

14%

39%

43%

26%40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Preschool teachers consult with

therapists/specialists to plan lessons that address

specific IEP/therapy goals/objectives

Preschool children’s IEP goals are embedded into

regular routines and activities

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always



53

Addressing the question of opportunities for staff to collaborate in support of

preschoolers with IEPs, almost three-quarters of Site Directors responded that preschool staff

have joint planning time either weekly or daily. A similar percentage reported child related

information was communicated among staff weekly or daily (see Figure 3f). Collaboration

between teachers and therapists is equally likely to happen monthly (30%) or weekly (31%).

Interestingly, 21% of Site Directors reported never interacting with Directors of Special

Education regarding questions about children with IEPs. Another 27% reported this happens a

few times per year, 19% said it happens monthly, 22% weekly, and 11% daily.

Figure 3f: Staff collaboration to support preschoolers with IEPs

Who is included on the PPTs?

Directors of Special Education were asked to report the typical members of PPTs (see Figure

3g). Almost all districts include parents (99%), therapists (95%), special education teachers

(88%), and preschool teachers (87%). A large percentage (74%) also typically include a

psychologist. The least likely PPT members are center directors (9%) and district-level ECE

supervisors (11%); however, it should be noted that one or both of these positions may have been

accounted for in others answer choices selected.

4%

3%

6%

21%

12%

9%

23%

27%

12%

16%

30%

19%

46%

32%

31%

22%

27%

40%

10%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Joint Planning Time for Preschool Staff

Child Related Information Communicated Among Staff

Teachers Collaborate with Therapists

Special Ed. Director Assists with Questions about Chidren

with Special Needs

Never A few times per year Monthly Weekly Daily



54

Figure 3g: Typical preschool IEP PPT members

How often are IEPs reviewed?

Almost two-thirds of districts review and/or adjust preschoolers’ IEPs annually, according to

Directors of Special Education, and the remaining districts review them multiple times per year.

Transition of IEPs from Preschool to Kindergarten

Only slightly more than half of ECE Supervisors described having written guidelines or

procedures in place to transition IEPs from preschool to kindergarten, while about two-thirds of

Directors of Special Education reported that these procedures are in place.

Both Directors of Special Education and ECE supervisors were asked to describe the

process of transitioning preschoolers’ IEPs to kindergarten. Some described a partnership with

the K-12 systems where they are invited to participate by even observing the child in the

classroom, and articulation mechanisms exist for the transition, even though these are sometimes

not specified in writing:

Kindergarten aged students are observed by the receiving elementary school at

least by the special education teacher, sometimes by more providers and general

ed teachers. The receiving staff reviews the IEPs and goals and objectives. The

preschool team and the receiving school team meet to discuss the students profile

and need. An "Articulation" PPT is held with the receiving schools’ special

education team, the parent and the PK special education teacher to review the

needs of the student and create an IEP for Kindergarten setting. The parents

participate in the process. [ECE 12]

99%

87%

88%

44%

9%

46%

46%

42%

52%

11%

95%

74%

33%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Parents

Preschool teachers

Special education teachers

Special educators/specialists

Center director

School principal

Director of preschool special education for the district

Special education supervisor with responsibility for…

Case manager

District early childhood supervisor

Therapists (Speech, PT, OT, BCBA)

Psychologist

Social worker

Other



55

Although the information is not formally written in our guidelines, Spring

transition PPTs are scheduled including members of the receiving kindergarten

team. During this meeting information is shared regarding key components to

support a positive transition to kindergarten. Depending on the level of need,

additional informal meetings are scheduled including but not limited to informal

observations of the student. [SpED 14]

In contrast, the process as describe by other districts seems to be more limited, with

conversations happening between teachers but not necessarily the PPT teams.

Pre K teachers meet with Kindergarten teachers to review IEPs and provide

additional helpful information. [ECE 22]

[P]rocess is currently being developed [SpED 45]

However, most responses showed collaborations between PPTs, between

teachers, and many responses included the use of observations by the receiving team.

Frequency cloud analyses for the language in these responses (Figure A.6 in the

Appendix) show the prevalence of terminology used such as “meeting”, “PPT”,

“receiving”, “teacher” and “team”, which seem to point to collaboration between teams.

Parents are less prevalent in these responses, relative to those in referrals and IEP

development.

4. Early Learning and Development Standards

How familiar are staff with the ELDS?

More than half of Directors of Special Education (53%) and ECE Supervisors (58%) reported

being very familiarly with the CT Early Learning and Development Standards (CT ELDS) and

using them to guide their work, and almost 40% of each group said that they are familiar with

them. At the site level, principals and center directors reported that almost 80% of preschool

teachers reference the CT ELDS when planning instruction and another 15% said that teachers

references them at least some of them time when planning instruction.

How is the CT ELDS Used by Programs?

At the site level, the CT ELDS are often or almost always used in the following ways: to inform

professional development for teachers (78% of sites), to guide placement and instruction of

children with IEPs (78% of sites), to inform curriculum decisions (86% of sites), and to guide

preschool instruction (89% of sites) (see Figure 4a).



56

Figure 4a: Extent to which CT ELDS guide practices reported by site directors

ECE Supervisors answered three comparable questions about their districts and reported

that the CT ELDS are often or almost always used in the following ways: to inform professional

development for teachers (76% of districts), to inform curriculum decisions (85% of districts),

and to guide preschool instruction (91% of districts) (see Figure 4b). Responses across the two

respondents were very similar.

Figure 4b: Extent to which CT ELDS guide practice reported by ECE supervisors

Site Directors were asked to expand on the ways in which the CT ELDS are integrated

into classroom practice (see Figure 4c). Over 90% of Site Directors indicated that the CT ELDS

are used to develop learning centers and plan large group activities, and almost 90% use them to

3%

3%

7%

3%

5%

3%

8%

9%

20%

15%

25%

27%

28%

35%

64%

60%

40%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Preschool Instruction

Curricula Decisions

Placement & Instructions of children with IEPs

PD for Preschool Teachers

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Always

2%

4%

9%

13%

19%

24%

26%

37%

67%

59%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Preschool Instruction

Curricula Decisions

PD for Preschool Teachers

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Always



57

plan small group activities or to plan activities or supports for individual children. Fewer (though

still close to 60%) reported using the CT ELDS to inform portfolio assessments, book choices,

classroom displays, and direction provided to aides or classroom volunteers. Less than 20% of

Site Directors reported that the CT ELDS are not integrated into classroom practice.

Figure 4c: Integration of ELDS into preschool classrooms

ECE Supervisors were also asked to describe how the CT ELDS were used in their

districts. Responses showed a focus using them for planning purposes (53%), some mention of

their use in instruction (33%) and for creating or aligning curriculum (43%). Some ECE

Supervisors described their use in child assessment (24%), and there was some minimal

discussion of the ELDS use in relation to SRBI or IEP planning, and in relation to planning

trainings. Very few ECE Supervisors brought up its use in relation to observations. Some

examples of responses that illustrate various uses of the CT ELDS are:

We use them to guide our practice and are currently using them to develop PK-4

ELA and Math Curricula. Our preschool progress reports are aligned with them

as well. [ECE 48]

Our board of education approved curriculum is based on the CT ELDS. The

teachers refer to the document frequently for guidance. [ECE 16]

For some programs, ELDs guides curriculum. Other programs use ELDs as

resource. There are some programs that do not use ELDs or a formal curriculum.

[ECE 12]

9%

17%

58%

60%

61%

61%

64%

67%

68%

74%

84%

89%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other Uses

Preschool Teachers Do NOT use ELDS

Talk with Aides and Volunteers about Wokring with…

Choose Appropriate Classroom Displays

Inform Book Choice Available to Children

Inform Portfolio Assessments

Inform Family Engagement

Develop Art Projects

Plan Transitional Activities

Education Families about Child Development

Plan Activities or Supports for Individual Children

Plan Small Group Activities

Plan Circle Time/Large Group Activities

Develop Learning Centers



58

[T]eachers are given a copy. [T]hey take it upon themselves to implement them

into their classrooms and teaching. [ECE 19]

Training on CT ELDS

ECE Supervisors and Site Directors were how often preschool teachers receive training related to

the CT ELDS. About 42% of ECE Supervisors and 36% of Site Directors responded that

preschool teachers receive training multiple times per year, while 37% and 34% (respectively)

said it happens annually. A small percentage reported that training related to the CT ELDS

happens on a monthly basis (ECE Supervisors, 4%; Site Directors, 12%). Only 17% of ECE

Supervisors and 18% of Site Directors responded that CT ELDS training occurs only once upon

hiring or not at all.

Alignment of assessments with CT ELDS

Directors of Special Education answered questions about the extent to which preschool

assessments are aligned with the CT ELDS (see Figure 4d). Assessments informing curriculum

and instruction are more likely to be aligned with the CT ELDS (80% of districts) than

assessments informing progress monitoring (61% of districts). However, approximately 13% of

Directors of Special Education responded that they are unsure of whether either types of

assessment are aligned with the CT ELDS.

Figure 4d: Are preschool assessments aligned to the CT ELDS?

Use of CT DOTS

All three groups of respondents were asked about the use of CT DOTS to assess preschoolers’

learning, and responses were fairly consistent across respondent groups. Between 42% and 46%

of respondents said that the CT DOTS are currently being used to assess preschoolers’ learning;

80%

61%

5%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Assessments informing

curriculum/instruction

aligned with CT ELDS

Assessments informing

progress monitoring aligned

with CT ELDS

No Not sure



59

between 30% and 35% said that it is not currently being used; and 20% to 28% said that they are

in the process of transitioning to the CT DOTS.

5. What types of Professional Development supports do teachers receive?

Amount of professional development provided to preschool teachers

On average, ECE Supervisors reported that preschool teachers and therapists receive 32 hours of

professional development each year, with between 11 and 12 hours related to serving children

with special needs. Preschool paraprofessionals receive less than half this amount of professional

development (14 total hours with just five dedicated to special education issues). It is important

to note, however, that the range of reported professional development hours related to special

education across districts ranged from no hours to 100% of hours. Also, more than a quarter of

responding districts (27%) indicated that requirements for professional development hours are

different for preschool teachers serving children with IEPs and preschool teachers who do not.

Also, fewer than 5% of districts, according to both ECE Supervisors and Directors of Special

Education, have policies to reward staff for obtaining professional development in inclusive

practices.

All three types of respondents were asked about training on inclusive practices for

preschool staff during in-service days. Responses from ECE Supervisors and Directors of

Special Education were nearly identical. Roughly 60% responded that all preschool staff receive

training on inclusive practices during in-service days, 9% said that only preschool staff working

with children with IEPs receive training on inclusive practices, and 11-14% said that training is

provided to “other” preschool staff. In both surveys, 17% responded that no preschool staff

receive professional development on inclusion. Seventy-two percent of Site Directors said that

all preschool staff receive training on inclusive practices, 9% said that only preschool staff

working with children with IEPs receive training on inclusive practices, and 6% said that training

is provided to “other” preschool staff. Only 13% of Site Directors reported that no preschool

staff receive training related to inclusion.

Preschool professional development providers

When asked who provides professional developed related to inclusive practices, answers varied

somewhat between the Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors. Almost 90% of

Directors of Special Education and 95% of ECE Supervisors said that some inclusion

professional development sessions are conducted by in-district staff. Both groups of respondents

said that some professional development is also provided by Regional Education Service Center

staff, private contractors, and the State Education Resource Center (SERC), but the percentage of

responses varied slightly for each. For Regional Education Service Center staff, 46% of ECE

Supervisors and 54% of Directors of Special Education reported them providing professional

development related to inclusion. For private contractors, the percentages were 54% versus 48%,

and for the SERC they were 39% versus 49%, respectively. Site Directors reported much lower

percentages of professional development being delivered by these entities: in-district staff (67%),

Regional Education Service Center staff (30%), private contractors (46%), and SERC (22%).



60

Professional development topics covered for preschool teachers

Early Childhood Supervisors reported a wide range of professional development topics covered

for preschool teachers (see Figure 5a). The most widely, and sufficiently, covered topics include

positive behavioral interventions and support, referral processes, classroom quality, curriculum,

and the CT ELDS. Topics least likely to be covered are DEC recommended practices, supporting

dual language learners, parent involvement in the IEP process, and birth-3 programming and

transition. ECE Supervisors indicated that more emphasis is needed in all of the professional

development topics listed.

Figure 5a: Professional development topics covered for preschool teachers

Coaching/Mentoring for preschool teachers

ECE Supervisors were asked several questions about coaching and mentoring provided to

preschool teachers. Just over two-thirds responded that mentors/coaches are available for all

preschool teachers, and 68% said that mentors/coaches are from the school district. Fewer

districts (57%) require individualized professional development plans for all teachers, 14% for

some teachers, and 29% do not require them at all. In those districts that provide coaching, 6%

say that teachers meet with their coaches only annually, 44% say that teachers meet with their

coaches a few times per year, 25% say it occurs monthly, 8% bi-weekly, and 8% weekly. The

remaining 8% responded that teachers do not meet with coaches. During coaching sessions, the

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Preschool Curriculum

Child Development

Supporting Dual Language Learners

Referral process

IEP writing

Parent involvement in IEP

Progress monitoring

Classroom quality

Positive behavioral interventions and supports

Crisis prevention strategies

Federal special education law

State special education law

Birth-3 programming/ transition

Response to intervention

Behavior management

DEC Recommended Practices

CT-ELDS

Assessment (in general)

Assessment/ progress monitoring using the CT-DOTS

Covered sufficiently Covered but more emphasis needed Not Coverted during PD



61

most commonly covered topics are classroom management (66%), content-specific topics (60%),

and best practice for children with IEPs (54%). The least covered topics tend to be classroom

interactions (49%), review of observation results (40%), and best practices for dual language

learners (40%).

Supports to attend professional development

ECE Supervisors were asked to describe supports available for preschool teaching staff to attend

courses, conferences, and/or workshops to enhance professional development (e.g., paid

transportation to conferences, coverage available, paid conference fees). Respondents mostly

pointed towards an intention to support teachers but a large fraction mentioned minimal supports

or limited funding. Only one third of ECE Supervisors specified covering conference fees and

about another third mentioned coverage for teaching substitutes. Very few responses mentioned

covering conference/PD fees, or transportation or mileage. The following examples highlight

some of the variation in responses:

[M]inimal, we have time built into yearly schedule [ECE 16]

Paid transportation and lunch on the conference day, coverage to attend,

sometimes paid conference fees but currently in a budget freeze. University

course reimbursement. [ECE 19]

Staff are encouraged to attend course, conferences, etc. Costs are most often

covered by program funds. [ECE 25]

Teacher can complete a PD request form if they have an interest in attending

something. If it is approved, they will get sub coverage, paid for mileage and pay

for the PD. [ECE 29]

6. What supports are available for curriculum implementation?

Preschool curriculum approaches and models

ECE Supervisors and Site Directors were asked what approaches they use for curriculum

planning and implementation. Ninety percent of ECE Supervisors and 88% of Site Directors

responded that lessons plans are developed either daily or weekly. Next most commonly, 61% of

ECE Supervisors and 56% of Site Directors reported the use of a locally-developed curriculum

(41% and 30% reported use of a commercially-developed curriculum, respectively). Across both

surveys, fewer than 6% indicated using Reggio Emilia or Montessori Method as approaches for

curriculum planning and implementation. Site Directors also responded to a question asking

what goals/outcomes form the basis for curriculum and planning in preschool classrooms.

Ninety-one percent said that the CT ELDS serve as a guide for curriculum and planning goals

and 78% said that IEP or IFSP goals serve as their guide. Fewer Site Directors answered using



62

outcomes specified in their assessment tool(s) as a guide (43%), or goals outlined in their

curriculum (37%), and just 7% indicated using the Head Start Framework.

Although seven of the most commonly used preschool curricula were provided as answer

choices in the survey, the most frequently selected answer choice by both ECE Supervisors and

Site Directors was “other” (89% and 54%, respectively). For both, the next most common choice

was Creative Curriculum32 (30% and 44%, respectively). Beyond this, only 11% of ECE

Supervisors selected High/Scope33 and just 4% selected either Frog Street34 or Tools of the

Mind35. None selected Bank Street36, Curiosity Corner37, or Opening the World of Learning

(OWL)38. Five percent or fewer of site-level directors selected High/Scope, OWL or Tools of the

Mind, and none selected Bank Street, Curiosity Corner, or Frog Street.

Curriculum adaptations for preschoolers with IEPs

All three respondents were asked about the extent to which preschoolers with IEPs are supported

through curriculum and instruction. Across the three surveys, the largest variation was in

response to whether adaptations are made to the curriculum. While 96% of ECE Supervisors and

89% of Directors of Special Education reported that curriculum adaptations are made to support

preschoolers with IEPS, just 69% of Site Directors indicated that this practice takes place.

Similarly, although 98% of ECE Supervisors and 94% of Directors of Special Education said

that modifications are made to curricula, the percentage drops to 83% of Site Directors. A

comparable pattern of differences is also seen in response to whether adjustments are made to

activities. However, across all three surveys 92% - 94% responded that preschoolers with IEPs

are supported through planning individualized strategies.

Curriculum training for preschool teachers

According to 60% of ECE Supervisors, preschool teachers receive curriculum training a few

times per year. Just under a quarter (23%) said that training occurs just once per year and 8%

replied that training takes places monthly. Approximately 10% indicated that curriculum training

occurs either never, or just once upon hiring. Responses from Site Directors varied from those of

the ECE Supervisors: at the program level, 53% reported that training happens a few times per

year, 25% monthly, 17% annually, a 5% never or once upon hiring.

Asked whether curriculum training includes strategies for teachers to work with children

with IEPs in the classroom, answers were somewhat more similar across the two surveys.

Seventy-one percent of ECE Supervisors and 81% of Site Directors said that all preschool

teachers receive training that includes strategies for working with preschoolers with IEPs.

Another 8% of ECE Supervisors and 6% of Site Directors responded that this kind of training

takes place, but only for preschool teachers of children with IEPs. The remaining respondents

32 https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/teach/preschool/ 33 https://highscope.org/our-practice/curriculum/ 34 http://www.frogstreet.com/curriculum/ 35 https://toolsofthemind.org/ 36 https://www.bankstreet.edu/about-bank-street/our-approach/ 37 http://www.successforall.org/our-approach/schoolwide-programs/curiosity-corner/ 38 http://www.texasowl.com/previewonline.html

https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/teach/preschool/

https://highscope.org/our-practice/curriculum/

http://www.frogstreet.com/curriculum/

https://toolsofthemind.org/

https://www.bankstreet.edu/about-bank-street/our-approach/

http://www.successforall.org/our-approach/schoolwide-programs/curiosity-corner/

http://www.texasowl.com/previewonline.html



63

(22% of ECE Supervisors and 13% of Site Directors) indicated that this training is not provided

to any preschool teachers.

7. Assessment and Screening

Preschool curriculum and related assessments

Responses to questions about the use of a child assessment associated with the preschool

curriculum varied between ECE Supervisors and Site Directors. Forty-five percent of ECE

Supervisors report that a curriculum assessment is used (most commonly CT DOTS39 and TS

GOLD40) and 33% said that a separate tool is used (most commonly CT DOTS, Battelle41, and

Brigance42). By contrast, over two-thirds of Site Directors reported using a curriculum

assessment tool and only 19% reported using a separate tool. The most common assessments

cited by Site Directors were the ASQ43, Brigance, CT DOTS, DIAL44, and TS GOLD.

Preschool assessments by purpose

Respondents were also asked which assessments were used in (1) Child Find and for screening,

(2) to determine eligibility/for evaluation, (3) for informing curriculum and instruction, (4) to

monitor children’s progress towards their IEP goals, and (5) for monitoring progress towards

program and curriculum goals. A variety of instruments were mentioned across districts for these

different purposes. For example, ECE Supervisors highlighted:

For Child Find and screening: most common DIAL, Battelle and to a lesser extent,

Brigance. Almost half of the respondents included others beyond ASQ, PLS45 (16%),

ESI46 (6%), TS GOLD, HAPP-347, DECA48.

39 https://ctspecialednews.org/2019/03/05/ct-documentation-and-observation-for-teaching-system-ct-dots/ 40 https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/assess/gold/ 41 https://www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/battelle-developmental-inventory-3?tab=0 42 https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/brigance/early-childhood 43 https://agesandstages.com/ 44 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-

Learning/Brief/Developmental-Indicators-for-the-Assessment-of-Learning-%7C-Fourth-Edition/p/100000304.html 45 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Speech-%26-

Language/Preschool-Language-Scales-%7C-Fifth-Edition/p/100000233.html 46 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-

Learning/Brief/The-Early-Screening-Inventory-%7C-Third-Edition/p/100001986.html 47 https://www.proedinc.com/Products/11550/happ3-hodson-assessment-of-phonological-patternsthird-edition.aspx 48 https://centerforresilientchildren.org/preschool/assessments-resources/the-devereux-early-childhood-assessment-

clinical-form-deca-c-kit/

https://ctspecialednews.org/2019/03/05/ct-documentation-and-observation-for-teaching-system-ct-dots/

https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/assess/gold/

https://www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/battelle-developmental-inventory-3?tab=0

https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/brigance/early-childhood

https://agesandstages.com/

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-Learning/Brief/Developmental-Indicators-for-the-Assessment-of-Learning-%7C-Fourth-Edition/p/100000304.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-Learning/Brief/Developmental-Indicators-for-the-Assessment-of-Learning-%7C-Fourth-Edition/p/100000304.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Speech-%26-Language/Preschool-Language-Scales-%7C-Fifth-Edition/p/100000233.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Speech-%26-Language/Preschool-Language-Scales-%7C-Fifth-Edition/p/100000233.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-Learning/Brief/The-Early-Screening-Inventory-%7C-Third-Edition/p/100001986.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-Learning/Brief/The-Early-Screening-Inventory-%7C-Third-Edition/p/100001986.html

https://www.proedinc.com/Products/11550/happ3-hodson-assessment-of-phonological-patternsthird-edition.aspx

https://centerforresilientchildren.org/preschool/assessments-resources/the-devereux-early-childhood-assessment-clinical-form-deca-c-kit/

https://centerforresilientchildren.org/preschool/assessments-resources/the-devereux-early-childhood-assessment-clinical-form-deca-c-kit/



64

For Eligibility/evaluation: Most predominant in responses is Battelle, after which there is

mention of PLS, Brigance, ADOS49, CELF50 and others, including responses on

individually designed evaluations.

For informing instruction: Combinations of sources, observations, assessments,

information. Some mention of Brigance, TS GOLD, ELDS, CT DOTS. 10% mentioned

locally developed assessments.

To monitoring progress towards IEP goals: Use of IEP goals, or combinations of data,

portfolios and observations. Some mention of CT DOTS.

To monitor progress towards curriculum goals: Most of the responses included CT

DOTS, TS GOLD and observations.

Responses by Directors of Special Education mostly aligned with responses from ECE

Supervisors. Some additional assessments mentioned were observations for screening, BDI and

for eligibility, Brigance for informing instructions, Brigance and TS GOLD for monitoring

progress towards IEP goals and Brigance also for monitoring progress towards curriculum.

ECE Supervisors were asked how the information from the assessments of each

preschool child's skill or progress is used in the classroom. Two-thirds mentioned this data were

used to guide instructions (66%), 56% referred to planning, and 24% referred to IEP

development. A few respondents mentioned that this data are used to work with specialists or

with parents, for benchmarking, or for curricular development.

In addition, 83% of districts reported that assessments used to inform curriculum and/or

instruction aligned with the CT ELDS, 51% of districts report that assessments used to inform

progress monitoring are aligned with the CT ELDS, 11% reported they were not sure about

alignment and 4% said assessments were not aligned with the CT ELDS.

Frequency cloud analyses of these responses (Figure A.7 in the Appendix) aligns with

these findings. The “Battelle”, “Brigance” and “DIAL” were most commonly mentioned with

regards to screening; “ADOS” and “PLS” were commonly mentioned as used for eligibility

purposes; “CT DOTS” for instruction and progress towards curriculum; and “goals” were

mentioned in responses about the use of assessment for monitoring progress towards IEP goals.

Adaptations for assessments of preschoolers with IEPs

Responses from Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors were fairly consist

regarding the extent to which adaptations are made for assessments of preschoolers with IEPs.

Both report that adaptations are made as needed most frequently for informing curriculum/

instruction, then for progress monitoring for program/curriculum goals, and then for progress

monitoring for IEP goals. Both groups also consistently reported that adaptations are least likely

for eligibility determinations.

49 https://www.wpspublish.com/ados-2-autism-diagnostic-observation-schedule-second-

edition?utm_term=ados%20test&utm_campaign=Search+%7C+Champion+Keyword+RSA%27s+-

+Broad+Match&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_tgt=kwd-

1820849069&hsa_ad=350562097364&hsa_acc=6243382947&hsa_grp=71360921235&hsa_mt=b&hsa_cam=19336

26877&hsa_kw=ados%20test&hsa_ver=3&hsa_src=g&gclid=CjwKCAjw2a32BRBXEiwAUcugiMX8kjiWsSfRlA

57EWgwvaT2qVlORaBj5IvwDe1A-zCEtgcSXekHGhoChEUQAvD_BwE 50 https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Developmental-

Early-Childhood/Clinical-Evaluation-of-Language-Fundamentals-Preschool-2/p/100000316.html

https://www.wpspublish.com/ados-2-autism-diagnostic-observation-schedule-second-edition?utm_term=ados%20test&utm_campaign=Search+%7C+Champion+Keyword+RSA%27s+-+Broad+Match&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_tgt=kwd-1820849069&hsa_ad=350562097364&hsa_acc=6243382947&hsa_grp=71360921235&hsa_mt=b&hsa_cam=1933626877&hsa_kw=ados%20test&hsa_ver=3&hsa_src=g&gclid=CjwKCAjw2a32BRBXEiwAUcugiMX8kjiWsSfRlA57EWgwvaT2qVlORaBj5IvwDe1A-zCEtgcSXekHGhoChEUQAvD_BwE






https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Developmental-Early-Childhood/Clinical-Evaluation-of-Language-Fundamentals-Preschool-2/p/100000316.html

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Developmental-Early-Childhood/Clinical-Evaluation-of-Language-Fundamentals-Preschool-2/p/100000316.html



65

Frequency of screenings

The Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors were extremely uniform in their

responses to questions about the frequency of screenings for preschool children. Screenings to

inform curriculum and instruction occur multiple time per year in 82%–83% of district, child

progress monitoring happens multiple times per year in 93%–94% of districts, and child progress

monitoring for program and curriculum goals happens multiple times per year in 87%–91% of

districts. One of the few small discrepancies was that Directors of Special Education (8%) were

more likely than ECE Supervisors (2%) to report that child progress monitoring for program and

curriculum goals happens only at the beginning of the year. Conversely, ECE Supervisors (7%)

were more likely than Directors of Special Education (3%) to report that screenings to inform

curriculum and instruction happened only at the beginning of the year (7%).

8. Preschool Classroom Experiences, Activities, and Accessibility

Preschool classroom experiences

The majority of Site Directors (75%) reported that preschoolers with and without IEPs are

always encouraged to work collaboratively and 22% said that children are often encouraged (see

Figure 8a). A smaller percentage (36%) indicated that children always see representations of

themselves in classroom materials and activities, but another 56% said that they do often. Even

fewer Site Directors (32%) reported that classroom activities are always embedded with

experiences to promote understanding of individual differences, however another 58% said they

often are.

Figure 8a: Frequency of Classroom Experiences

36% 32%

75%

56%58%

22%

7% 9%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Representatives of themselves in

classroom materials and activities

Embed activities to promote

understanding of individual

differences

Preschoolers without IEP’s

encouraged to work collaboratively

with preschoolers with IEP’s

Always Often Sometimes Rarely



66

Classroom activities for preschoolers with IEPs

Site Directors provided information on the amount of time preschoolers with IEPs spend

engaged in various activities (see Figure 8b). On average, child directed activities comprise the

largest portion of the day for preschool children with IEPs, with 59% of Site Directors indicating

that children have choice for at least an hour a day. Appropriately, adult-directed activities

(whole group, small group, and individual) most frequently happen for just five to 30 minutes

per day. Children work in self-chosen groups for at least an hour each day in 42% of programs,

and work together in other groups for at least an hour each day in 37% of programs.

Figure 8b: Time preschoolers with IEPs spend by type of activity

Time preschoolers spend in content areas

According to ECE Supervisors, the largest cumulative blocks of time (at least one hour or more

per day) are reserved for literacy and math, followed by fine motor, gross motor and dramatic

play (see Figure 8c). Site Directors reported a slightly different list, including literacy, fine

motor, dramatic play, and blocks, closely followed by art (see Figure 8d). Less time (an hour or

less per day) is most commonly set aside for technology, science, and teachers reading to

children, based on responses from both ECE Supervisors and Site Directors. Interestingly, Site

Directors reported anywhere between 15 and several hundred books available for children to use

on their own, and most said that books are frequently rotated.

3%

4%

5%

3%

18%

48%

42%

48%

29%

26%

16%

19%

22%

23%

25%

23%

37%

21%

22%

18%

27%

27%

22%

4%

5%

2%

10%

15%

6%

5%

5%

5%

6%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Child chooses activities

Adult directed individual activities

Adult directed small group activities

Adult directed whole class/group activities

Children work together in groups

Children work together in self-chosen groups

5 minutes or less 5 to 30 minutes > 30 minutes, less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours More than 2 hours Unknown



67

Figure 8c: Time preschoolers spend per content area, reported by ECE supervisors

Figure 8d: Time preschoolers spend per content area, reported by site directors

9%

47%

48%

36%

31%

40%

27%

22%

49%

24%

29%

29%

25%

33%

33%

29%

36%

38%

29%

24%

29%

11%

9%

16%

24%

16%

20%

27%

11%

29%

24%

13%

9%

16%

11%

16%

18%

13%

9%

22%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Science

Technology

Blocks

Gross Motor

Art

Dramatic Play

Fine motor

Teacher reads to children

Literacy

Math

5 minutes or less 5 to 30 minutes > 30 minutes, less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours More than 2 hours

13%

42%

48%

32%

22%

34%

24%

26%

45%

18%

31%

29%

26%

27%

36%

27%

34%

30%

33%

24%

25%

17%

7%

25%

31%

26%

27%

29%

18%

36%

33%

9%

5%

14%

9%

12%

13%

14%

4%

19%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Science

Technology

Blocks

Gross Motor

Art

Dramatic Play

Fine motor

Teacher reads to children

Literacy

Math

5 minutes or less 5 to 30 minutes > 30 minutes, less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours More than 2 hours



68

Classroom accessibility

The overwhelming majority of Site Directors (88%) reported that all preschoolers with special

needs have physical access to all areas in the classroom as well as to the school entrance (92%),

the entrance to the outdoor gross motor area (91%), the gross motor area itself (88%), and to

bathrooms (89%). However, although the majority of programs said that all children with special

needs can access the outdoor gross motor area, only 70% said that all children with IEPs can

access gross motor equipment. Forty-six percent of Site Directors reported that alternative means

of communication are always or often incorporated into the preschool classroom to help children

with IEPs communicate and participate in activities with their peers.

9. Family Engagement

Strategies used to promote family engagement

Almost 100% of respondents across all three surveys use family-teacher conferences to engage

the families of preschoolers. Family engagement activities (e.g. game nights) and classroom

volunteering opportunities were the next most commonly used strategies, though they were

reported more commonly by Site Directors than by Directors of Special Education or ECE

Supervisors. One of the largest discrepancies across the respondents was in the use of home

visits as a family engagement strategy. While more than two-thirds of Directors of Special

Education reported that home visits were conducted home visits, only 50% of ECE Supervisors

and just 31% of Site Directors reported engaging preschool families through home visits.

When asked for additional information about the strategies that their district uses to

ensure the engagement of families with preschool children, 25 Directors of Special Education

provided some additional information. There was variation in these responses from engagement

in the child’s learning process in a variety of ways (e.g., regular communication or daily

informational sheets, opportunities for child observations, parent groups or workshops, IEP

meetings) to information events (e.g., back to school night, some sort of family day, family

events in the classroom).

In addition, Directors of Special Education where also asked to provide additional detail

about the engagement of families and parents in the IEP development. Almost all respondents

defined family engagement around the PPT meeting. About half of the respondents define

frequent or very frequent communications. For example:

As a program, the preschool provides daily logs to parents about what the

children are working on for all children. Children with IEPs have either bi weekly

or monthly written updates by the SET, SLP and monthly by the OT/PT. [SpED

10]

Families are invited to conference with their preschool/special education teacher

3 times a year. In addition, families receive a weekly report on their child and

have the opportunity to communicate with their child's team through a daily

communication log that goes back and forth from school to home. Further,

families receive quarterly progress reports on their IEP goals in addition to



69

report cards aligned to the CTELDS. In addition, students typically have 2-3

review PPT meetings throughout the course of the school year. [SpED 16]

Families are offered opportunities to observe their child in the classroom a

minimum of once per year. Formal parent-teacher conferences occur twice per

year, and additional meetings are planned as often as needed. Special education

teachers also send home daily communication about the activities their child

engaged in on that day. Special education teachers and related service providers

frequently contact parents additionally by phone or email. [SpED 18]

Parents are invited to provided input prior to the PPT meeting about their

concerns. [SpED 42]

PPT meetings [SpED 44]

Discussion

This report summarizes the results of a needs assessment conducted in order to understand and

describe early childhood services for preschool-age children with an Individualized Education

Program (IEP) in the state of Connecticut. In collaboration with the Connecticut State

Department of Education (CSDE), NIEER developed survey protocols to collect information

about the quality of the environments in which 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old preschoolers in Connecticut

receive services as part of their IEP. This report summarizes the findings on preschool program

characteristics, the least restrictive environment (LRE), the development of IEPs, engagement

with the Early Learning and Development Standards (ELDS), curriculum practices, assessment,

professional development, classroom practices, and family engagement. Overall, the report

highlights areas of strong alignment to best practices and areas that would benefit from

additional professional development across preschool programs in CT. All data is self-reported

from surveys to Directors of Special Education, ECE Supervisors and Site Directors across the

state.

The results of the needs assessment demonstrate that there are some areas where across

districts and across the three respondent groups, policies and practices are similar. For example,

family engagement practices were uniformly high across districts and as reported by Directors of

Special Education, ECE Supervisors, and Site Directors, particularly around family-teacher

conferences. Similarly, Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisory had similar

responses regarding supporting preschoolers with IEPs as part of curriculum and instruction,

how assessment adaptations were made for preschoolers with disabilities, and the frequency of

screenings. Directors of Special Education and ECE Supervisors reported similar levels of

familiarity with the CT ELDS but Site Directors reported that their teachers had a higher level of

familiarity and engagement with the CT ELDS. Generally, responses indicated high levels of

engagement and familiarity with the ELDS. However, differences emerged as well; for example,

Directors of Special Education were more likely than ECE Supervisors to report that their district

had a written inclusion policy.

One concerning finding is that a large percentage of the district leadership did not have a



70

background in ECE. Although all Directors of Special Education had at least a Master’s Degree

and many of them had a background in Special Education, very few had a highest degree or

certification in ECE. All ECE Supervisors had at least a Bachelor’s degree but only 17%

reported that their highest degree was in ECE (and 23% reported it was in special education). A

higher percentage of ECE Supervisors did report a certification either in preschool special

education or ECE/preschool. Site Directors, particularly child care center directors and Head

Start directors, were more likely than the other two respondent groups to have a background in

ECE. Most preschool teachers also had at least a Bachelor’s degree, including nearly all in public

schools. The majority had a CT Pre-K and CT Special Education teacher certifications, though

there was variation across programs.

Overall, the majority of preschool teaching staff were White, non-Hispanic/non-Latino,

and spoke only English. Preschoolers, including preschoolers with IEPs also tended to be White,

non-Hispanic/non-Latino, and speak only English. However, on average, the teaching staff for

whom information was provided tended to be less diverse than the preschoolers for whom

information was provided. Both preschool teaching staff and preschoolers tended to be more

diverse in child care centers and Head Start centers than in public schools.

Nearly 60% of preschoolers with an IEP in the sample had a developmental delay; 20%

speech or language impairment, and 17% Autism (as reported by Directors of Special

Education). The prevalence of disabilities in the sample closely mirrors the entire state’s IDEA

data. However, there were some differences between the Director of Special Education reports

and Site director reports, as well as across program type. For example, children with a

developmental delay were more likely to be in public schools than child care or Head Start.

Children with a speech or language impairment were more likely to be in child care.

Understanding the prevalence of disability types across program type may be useful for targeting

professional development or other supports.

Preschoolers with an IEP were more likely to be in part-day programs than preschoolers

without an IEP. However, the study results do not shed light on why – is this driven by the IEP?

Or other factors such as program availability? Additionally, preschoolers (both with and without

an IEP) who attended child care or Head Start compared to public school preschool were more

likely to be in full-day program. Again, we do not know if the IEPs dictate a longer school day

for children in these programs, or in the case of child care, for example, if parents pay for part of

the day not required by the IEP. Both from the perspective of supporting children’s development

and supporting working parents, increasing access to high quality full day preschool may be

important. Some responses indicate use of part-time services and transitions between schools in

order to serve the IEPs goals. Understanding alignment between these and the needs of children

with IEPs may further support programming.

A central goal of this needs assessment was to understand the quality of preschool

environments, including the extend to which districts and programs provide preschoolers with

disabilities an education in their LRE and maintain natural proportions in the classrooms. We

approached this question from a variety of perspectives. First, we found that most preschool

classrooms were considered General Education classrooms (rather than Special Education

classrooms) and most of those classrooms included at least one preschooler with an IEP. This

leaves about a quarter of the classroom as Special Education, with children with an IEP

comprising 50% or more of the classroom enrollment. Second, on average, just less than one-

third of preschoolers in a classroom had an IEP, though there was significant variation here,

ranging from 3% to 100%. And in many preschool classrooms 50% of children had an IEP (the



71

threshold for a Special Education classroom per CT’s definitions). Third, most Site Directors

correctly classified preschool classrooms as General or Special Education but not all did.

Responses from open-ended questions provide additional insight into how LRE and

natural proportions are implemented in preschool in CT. In particular, responses indicate

somewhat of a disconnect between the concept of continuum of services required by federal

IDEA and perceptions of respondents as to what that means and how to implement it and provide

services to preschoolers with an IEP in their LRE. Although many respondents defined LRE

based on a setting or inclusion, very few mentioned the idea of continuums, though more did

mention the idea of an education alongside peers without an IEP. A few mentioned the idea of

minimal services.

We also found variation in responses defining natural proportions across all three

respondent groups. Many emphasized the established inclusion ratio of 50% of children with an

IEP but fewer mentioned its definition in relation to the incidence of children with special needs

in the larger preschool population. This may be the result of the structure of preschool programs

– that is some programs may start with children with IEPs and then recruit general education

preschoolers in order to create an inclusion program, rather than the programs serving the

preschool population at large. Further articulation of natural proportion in state guidelines could

provide additional guidance to align preschool services with K-12 services in relation to natural

proportions.

We also found variation in descriptions of the IEP development process. Whereas some

respondents provided simple answers about filling out forms, having a PPT meeting, or

following standards/policies, other provided more in depth answers that demonstrated a deeper

understanding of the process. These responses mentioned who should be involved, the different

steps in the process, as well as Child Find. Families and teachers seemed to be highly involved in

the IEP process, according to most respondents.

Across respondents and questions, DEC recommended practices seem to be quite absent

in respondent’s answers. Though this was not a focus of the survey questions, it was rarely

mentioned in responses to open ended questions. Additionally, the requirement to follow DEC

best practices was not a commonly selected answer across all three respondent groups when

asked about policies to support preschoolers with IEPs.

Conclusions

Results from this needs assessment indicate the most preschool teaching staff are receiving

professional development, and on average, an adequate number of PD hours each year. However,

not all preschool staff receive PD related to inclusion or related to serving preschoolers with

special needs. In-district staff were the most common provider of PD though districts and

programs also utilized regional education service centers, private contractors, and State

Education Resource Center. The majority of preschool teachers also receive coaching or

mentoring, but about one-third do not.

These results suggest that most districts and programs have in place systems to deliver

professional development and/or coaching/mentoring to preschool teachers. However, the data

collected in this needs assessment can be useful to inform new topics for emphasis in preschool

teacher PD and coaching. For example, some programs may need more professional

development/TA devoted to supporting preschoolers with IEPs and what it means to implement



72

inclusive education in children’s LRE. Responses to open-ended questions indicate that, across

the three respondent groups, not everyone fully understands the meaning of LRE or natural

proportions, or the steps involved in referring children for an IEP and developing IEPs. There

was also a large amount of variation in the tools used for screening and assessments (for different

purposes), many of which were district or program developed and therefore may not be valid and

reliable. Additional guidance on selecting and using assessment and screening tools could be

helpful. It was also concerning that there was no mention of differentiated assessments and

screening for dual language learners (though this was not explicitly asked).

All data in this report are self-reported by special education and preschool administrators.

Director surveys preschool teachers may provide additional useful information. Additionally,

direct observations of classroom practices using a standardized observation tool would provide

another perspective of the quality of preschool programs serving children with an IEP that could

also help inform a continuous quality improvement system.


NIEER Technical Report 73

Appendix. Tables and Figures

Figure A.1. Frequency cloud of language on LRE concepts

a. Directors of Special Education b. ECE Supervisors



Figure A.2. Format of IEP related services as reported by site director

12%

9%

13%

23%

23%

7%

10%

26%

37%

29%

13%

18%

30%

15%

53%

47%

50%

54%

52%

55%

65%

9%

8%

8%

10%

7%

8%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Speech and/or Language Therapy

Physical Therapy

Occupational Therapy

Behavior Therapy

Applied Behavior Analysis

Psychology

Social Work

Usually Push In Usually Pull Out Sometimes Push In & Sometimes Pull Out Other



Figure A.3. Frequency cloud of language around natural proportions




Figure A.4. Frequency cloud of language on referrals to special education




77

Figure A.5. Frequency cloud of language on IEP development



78

Figure A.6. Frequency cloud of language on IEP transition to Kindergarten



79

Figure A.7. Frequency cloud of language on Assessments as reported by ECE Supervisors

a. Child Find / Screening b. Eligibility determination / evaluation

c. Informing curriculum / instruction d. Progress monitoring towards IEP goals

e. Progress monitoring towards program /

curricula goals



80

List of Figures and Tables

Tables

Table A. Preschool special education needs assessment responses by 2016 DRG 8

Table 1a. Average number of staff per classroom by classroom and program type 17

Table 1b. Child to teaching staff ratios in preschool classrooms 17

Table 1c. Summary of the number of staff working with preschoolers 18

Table 1d. Summary of preschool staff per site 18

Table 1e. Preschool enrollment by disability type 36

Table 1f: Average number of preschoolers with an IEP by type of preschool

classrooms per school/center

38

Table 1g: Average number of preschoolers with an IEP for whom transportation

is a related service on their IEP

39

Figures

Figure 1a. State and federal funding used to support districts’ preschool

programs

12

Figure 1b. Methods for selecting children without an IEP for preschool

enrollment (reported by ECE supervisors)

13

Figure 1c. Type of preschool programs 14

Figure 1d. State and federal funding used by preschool program type 15

Figure 1e. Methods for selecting children without an IEP for preschool

enrollment by program type (reported by site directors)

15

Figure 1f. Lead preschool teacher race by program type 19

Figure 1g. Lead preschool teacher ethnicity by program type 19

Figure 1h. Lead preschool teacher languages spoken by program type 20

Figure 1i. Preschool paraprofessional race by program type 20

Figure 1j. Preschool paraprofessional ethnicity by program type 21

Figure 1k. Preschool paraprofessional languages spoken by program type 21

Figure 1l. Preschool related services provider race by program type 22

Figure 1m. Preschool related services provider ethnicity by program type 22

Figure 1n. Preschool related services provider languages spoken by program

type

23

Figure 1o. Lead preschool teacher highest degree by program type 24



81

Figure 1p. Lead preschool teacher highest degree in ECE by program type 24

Figure 1q. Lead preschool teacher highest degree in special education by

program type

25

Figure 1r. Lead preschool teacher CT teaching certifications by program type 25

Figure 1s. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree by program type 26

Figure 1t. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree in ECE by program type 27

Figure 1u. Preschool paraprofessional highest degree in special education by

program type

27

Figure 1v. Preschool paraprofessional CDA by program type 28

Figure 1w. Preschool children by race (reported by directors of special

education)

29

Figure 1x. Preschool children by race and program type (reported by site

directors)

29

Figure 1y. Preschool children by ethnicity (reported by directors of special

education)

30

Figure 1z. Preschool children by ethnicity and program type (reported by site

directors)

31

Figure 1aa. Preschool children by home language (reported by directors of

special education)

31

Figure 1ab. Preschool children by home language and program type (reported by

site directors)

32

Figure 1ac: Preschool children by eligibility for FRPL (reported by directors of

special education)

33

Figure 1ad: Preschool children by eligibility for FRPL (reported by site

directors)

33

Figure 1ae. Preschool children by age (reported by directors of special

education)

34

Figure 1af. Preschool children by age and program type (reported by site

directors)

35

Figure 1ag: Preschool enrollment by operating schedule (reported by site

director)

37

Figure 1ah: Settings in which preschoolers with IEPs received special education

services

38

Figure 2a. Distribution of percent of preschoolers with an IEP per classroom 40

Figure 2b. Language used for children with and without IEPs 42

Figure 2c. How districts ensure children with IEPs receive education in LREs 43



82

Figure 2d. Policies in place to support the provision of services to children with

an IEP

44

Figure 2e. Supports for preschoolers with IEPs in their classrooms 45

Figure 2f. Ways of defining Natural Proportions 46

Figure 2g. Format of IEP related services as reported by directors of special

education

47

Figure 2h. Format for push-in services, by informant 47

Figure 3a: Family involvement in IEP development, reported by directors of

special education

49

Figure 3b: Family involvement in IEP development, reported by site directors 49

Figure 3c. Descriptions of the special education referral process 50

Figure 3d: Preschool teachers access to information about preschoolers with

IEPs?

53

Figure 3e: Do preschool teachers have access to the following information about

preschoolers with IEPs?

53

Figure 3f: Staff collaboration to support preschoolers with IEPs 54

Figure 3g: Typical preschool IEP PPT members 55

Figure 4a: Extent to which CT ELDS guide practices reported by site directors 57

Figure 4b: Extent to which CT ELDS guide practice reported by ECE

supervisors

57

Figure 4c: Integration of ELDS into classrooms 58

Figure 4d: Are preschool assessments aligned to the CT ELDS? 59

Figure 5a: Professional development topics covered for preschool teachers 61

Figure 8a: Frequency of Classroom Experiences 66

Figure 8b: Time preschoolers with IEPs spend by type of activity 67

Figure 8c: Time preschoolers spend per content area, reported by ECE

supervisors

68

Figure 8d: Time preschoolers spend per content area, reported by site directors 68

Appendix Figures

Figure A.1. Frequency cloud of language on LRE concepts 74

Figure A.2. Format of IEP related services as reported by site director 75

Figure A.3. Frequency cloud of language around natural proportions 76

Figure A.4. Frequency cloud of language on referrals to special education 77



83

Figure A.5. Frequency cloud of language on IEP development 78

Figure A.6. Frequency cloud of language on IEP transition to Kindergarten 79

Figure A.7. Frequency cloud of language on Assessments as reported by ECE

Supervisors

80

Documents

CONNECTICUT PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS … · 2020. 4. 28. · CT Special Education Needs Assessment nieer.org NIEER Technical Report 2 Grateful acknowledgment is made to Andrea